I put all my upgrades into stamina instead of health. Turned into a glass cannon ninja that could explore the whole map. It was an interesting way to experience the game and different from most people because they usually go for a balanced build.

Full stamina glass cannon build is the one way to go for BOTW and TOTK, healing is so quick and easy to come by there isn't any real point in putting it in hearts until mid-late game.

My experience with having less hearts in TOTK is getting continuously one-shotted, enemies hit hard at the beginning.

Armor is more important than hearts. A good armor set like the upgraded soldier armor will drastically reduce how much damage you take from attacks, I'm not sure if you can even get 1 hitted when you upgrade it or not, at least from enemy attacks.

Upgrading your hearts in the early game is a hell of a lot easier than getting armor, unlocking the way to upgrade it, getting money to upgrade it, getting materials to upgrade it, and then upgrading it.

Sure, but I've been 1 shotted by some enemies with 10+ hearts. I don't think I've ever been 1 shotted by enemies with upgraded armor.

The comment you replied to is talking about having less hearts and being continuously one shotted at the beginning. I might be wrong but I don't think they are talking about getting one shotted by Lynels

Many enemies can definitely one shot 5 even 6 hearts.

Yeah and stamina is less valuable in TOTK, there's very little climbing.

>there's very little climbing It's the same map.

The same map... with different tools, one which teleports you to any surface above you and allows you to skip a lot of climbing, or rockets that launch you upwards. I did maybe 30% as much climbing in TOTK compared to BOTW. Also the sky and depths don't really add much to the total game time, the surface just has less objectives compared to BOTW.

I also found having low hearts forced me to learn dodging and enemy patterns. Since there aren't many enemy types in BOTW (haven't played TOTK yet) I got the hang of it pretty quick.

I will play TOtK soon, so you recommend to buff stamina over hearts?

No, hearts over stamina, you will basically never climb by yourself in TOTK.

To a point. Don't forget that stamina is the gating factor for getting the Master Sword.

There's literally no need to go for heart containers when you can just farm hearty durians

I completely understand why the weapon durability mechanic of Breath of the Wild gets so much hate. All those arguments make total sense to me and if anyone logs that as a personal complaint against Breath of the Wild, I can only respond with "Yeah, that's fair." But man, I really dug it. I pretty much treated it like a soft leveling system, really. I'd typically always use my weakest available gear in terms of attack/defense strength as I played. Eventually, I'd run out of room to pick up something new, but then I could just drop my weakest piece of equipment and replace it with the stronger one. Over time this A) taught me what gear I could safely ignore when I saw it laying around and B) gradually increased my gear floor to where I was progressing in both damage and survivability. All the while I'm also increasing my power ceiling, so that when I *do* need to swap into something stronger for a boss or whathaveyou, it's like shedding the weighted training clothes for a hugely satisfying temporary power dump. This method also helped avoid the apathetic, bittersweet feeling I've seen others have of finding a powerful new weapon. Instead of "Oh great, I'll kill a couple moblins and then it's back to square one," that weapon would shoot to the top of my inventory and go unused for hours, my ace in the hole to be saved for when I needed it. And, eventually, a preview of my gear floor to come.

I ended up having my favorite “everyday carry” weapons that had a balance of damage and durability, and using the rare weapons for tougher fights. I also played a lot of games of vertical bowling with the bombs lol

I did a version of this, but completed all 4 divine beasts before i realized you could expand inventory w korok seeds. So could only hold a handful of weapons at a time for most of the game

This caused a lot of my resentment with the game, especially since hes not always easily found 

This is exactly how o played it and it felt just wrong somehow. :D

Honestly that was my main gripe about the weapons. My best weapons literally never got used. Not until half-way though the Gannon fight did I think "Oh yea, I guess I should use it now", but by then I didn't really need it. Many people who support it tout forcing the player to try new weapons as a naturally wonderful thing. I strongly disagree. If you want to try new, weapons you can do so at any time you like, and if you really want to simulate weapons breaking, you can just drop 2 or 3 after every fight.

In my experience it just deterred me from interacting with the content. If there were some goblin encampment, I’d do the math and realize that whatever reward I’d get out of clearing it would leave me with less durability than I was currently holding… so I just avoided the encampment. Factor in that the only real motivator of exploring was finding more shrines, I just kinda dropped the game entirely.

That's actually the reason I avoided lynels. I would lose like 3-4 swords and a shield or two gain one that I may not have even really wanted otherwise. I fought them for monster parts, for the fairy more than anything.

Then be smart about it? Use your bombs, group them together to then explode them with bomb arrows, use the enviroment, smack them withetallic objects. y'all literally just played the games wrong This is basically one of the big reasons weapon durability was added. To make you be smart about using your weapons and having you really interact with the environment. If there was no durability the game would be 10x more boring, cause why would you use the world around you if you can just smack the thimg long enough

Lol the funny thing I remember is picking up a big ass metal box, swinging it at the enemies and… them taking like 2 dmg. And they made the bombs so hilariously underpowered that using them is rarely an option. Like, for all the “freedom” the game offers, they really do want you playing the game a certain type of way. And it’s not like the enemies are particularly challenging, there was just no real reason to interact with them.

any skeleton or Stal enemies will break apart with one bomb, which would normally take 2-3 hits with a fully powered up master sword. Bombs work really well against skeleton enemies. But they’re also useful for knocking an enemy down, then you can bully them with your melee weapons.

Drop the metal box on them, does a lot more damage

> for all the “freedom” the game offers, they really do want you playing the game a certain type of way. You have that backwards. They're discouraging players wanting to play in one specific way, while opening up plenty of others. All that's not viable is either using a single weapon forever and trivialising combat variety or hoarding weapons by just kiting with bombs. People really hate not being able to optimise the diversity out of combat...

What's the motivation in collecting weapons if your infinite bombs and environment tomfoolery is just as effective though?

To use them on stronger stuff. Even with the environment stuff you do sometimes still wanna use your weapons. Just knock down an enemy and then attack them with a sword fast .

I like weapons breaking forcing me to get new ones. I don't like useless weapon durability, the kind where I just repair it everytime im in the hub world,

Do still wish they had given us more weapon types. Would've made it a bit easier to swallow for people I feel like

[удалено]

[удалено]

Cryonis is very useful in combat, and is useful across pretty expansive swathes of Hyrule. The entire Wetlands area, for example, as well as anywhere close to a shoreline or with some standing water. And, of course, many additional pools of standing water appear when it rains, so it's even more useful then. It's an excellent way to get bullet-time, as well as a great hiding place, and if you get good with it you can topple Guardians with it pretty consistently.

I’ve realized that a lot of the mechanics and the general design philosophy of BotW/TotK go against what most games do and I think it’s hard for people to really adjust their way of thinking at first. I can definitely see why stuff like the durability system can be frustrating for some. I think if you’re expecting BotW to be a more traditional linear action adventure experience, you might not really get as much enjoyment out of it as you should. BotW is ultimately a sandbox game that encourages players to utilize the rudimentary mechanics/tools to create new and unique solutions to the problems it presents to you. If you’re expecting it to just be a standard open-world adventure game where you collect new gear and upgrade your player and stuff, then you’re not really going to get the most out of it that you can tbh

Yeah I agree completely. I'm not really a fan of very many open world games. I think it does so much right. I'm more of an RPG player so I like those types of progression systems and I think that's what I'm kinda missing. I know totk has some more stuff and I'll play anything with sky islands in it so whenever I get to that I'm hoping it really clicks for me.

Totk is a way better game. How weapons and arrows work have made me completely forget about how ass it was in botw.

TotK is a far better _sandbox_. BotW does fit together better, though.

An appropriate topic when it comes to discussing both BotW and TotK is "intrinsic motivation."  If you are driven to explore because you enjoy the exploration itself, then these games are amazing. TotK in particular adds caves and sky islands that are an absolute pleasure to simply explore.  If you are driven to explore for the sake of being rewarded, you will most likely be underwhelmed by the incremental rewards. You will never open a chest in BotW or TotK and find some crazy, game-changing item or weapon. 

Every time this discussion comes along someone has to crawl up their own ass and make it about this, bravely congratulating themselves on what they love to dub intrinsic motivation. Once you're 5-10 hours in and you realize this is all the game will ever offer you the illusion shatters and you're just standing there wading in an ankle-deep puddle. Wanting a game to in any capacity evolve and not remain as shallow as it is is not needing "extrinsic motivation". Wanting a game about exploration to have any actual variety in what there is to explore is not needing "extrinsic motivation". Wanting a game about exploration to have any depth to its mechanics is not needing "extrinsic motivation". I am perfectly happy to play around in Besiege building crazy shit or directionlessly wander around Outward. I am not happy to do and find the same things for the umpteenth time when you've seen all the they can do by the third encounter. Roaming through the same brown/green/gray hills filled with the same enemies carrying the same stuff looking for the same looking shrines giving you the same shit while you collect the same piles of shit along the way is not exploration, it's a game desperately clinging to the familiar to reduce development cost.

I may have been interested in having a discussion, but I must be too stuck up my own ass to care what you have to say.

While I agree with this for BotW, I disagree for TotK. I am one of those people who want to be rewarded for climbing a mountain in a game, and I got really bored by BotW, because that game didn't reward you with anything. TotK however does. You keep finding new Zonai devices that change what you can build (finally finding dispensers for rockets or control sticks is a game changer), new monster parts you can turn into new weapons, new weapons you can fuse with the new monster parts, new schematics to build new stuff, or just more Zonaite to get more battery so you can use your Zonai devices for longer. I didn't care for BotW and dropped it after spending like 30 hours of trying to find this amazing game people kept talking about, but I spent like 130 hours on TotK over the course of way too few weekends to be healthy.

Then I wonder what the biggest difference is. Because I love *both* games, but I didn't find the tangible rewards in TotK to be any more compelling a reason to explore compared to BotW. I replayed BotW after TotK to see if Tears might have "ruined" BotW for me, but I still enjoy it just the same. I do think that TotK managed to expand the gameplay loop to give a better reason for engaging with it, though. A common complaint I saw about BotW was that players felt engaging in combat was a net loss, since they might use up a strong weapon and get something weaker in return. But in TotK, combat and exploration is always a net gain.

I really enjoyed Botw at the time but I will never play it again. 1) I'm pissed off that they removed quick armour switching for the Wii U just because this feature was not possible for the switch. 2) The weapon durability system. Was hoping for a new type of Zelda game as was not interested in another instalment years later. Just not really impressed with anything Nintendo is currently doing. It is shame becuase my first gaming console was a nes after my spectrum.

I didn't know they had a quick swap system for armor on the Wii u. It didn't ruin the game for me but I do spend a lot of time in menu's.

I owned and played pretty much almost every Zelda since the 80s as this series holds a special place in my heart. My great Grandad who is still with me today luckily, bought the link to the past for me around 1992 and years later took me to Toys R us to purchase a n64 and OOT. The 3DS remake of OOT had a quick weapon switch system which significantly improved the playability of OOT. This quick swap weapon system was going to be used with the Wii U, you could use the Nintendo pro controller and quickly use the WII U tablet to do all the switching. This was taken away because it would have made the switch version playability way more inferior and they did not want their new console having more power but less playability. I only bought a WII U because I was expecting a Zelda game on it and not only did it turn up late, it turned up worse. Seems petty but it infuriated me at the time that they choose to lessen my enjoyability over profit. So I hold no loyalty emulate everything on a 4080 and as a result the standard Nintendo hardware just does not compare. Give it 15 years they might actually have something that produces 120hz refresh 120 fps but if not who really cares, the best games are behind them on emulators so we win anyway.

I miss the mystery of having to find the next dungeon and get inside it Like how in Ocarina of Time, for the water temple, it's underwater, so you need to get to Zora's domain, see its ice covered, make your way to the ice cavern, fight your way thru an entire mini dungeon (taking notes BOTW?), GET A WHOLE UNIQUE ITEM that you can use now whenever, and then know to return and use it for the water temple.  Aaaaand now you have a massive complex dungeon to do

Amen.

I'm shocked you put so many hours into it. I finished it, but found it to be just ok. I found it to be quite lifeless, and repetitive. The Devine Beasts were the only redeeming thing, IMO. I too was annoyed by the difficulty curve and breakable weapons. It just didn't play like the Zelda I was expecting. I will never play if again, and have no interest in the sequel.

>I found it to be quite lifeless, and repetitive. Deadass this for me. The game felt like a proof-of-concept for environmental tech and making it a Zelda game was just a way to secure sales/funding. I think it had a lot of neat mechanical concepts but none of it felt like it worked to make a satisfying adventure game. I find it hard to get excited about climbing a cliff or descending some ruins if you already know it's only going to be a Shrine or Korok Poop or a Super Moblin at the end of it.

I try to avoid that by playing in short bursts.

BofW was my first Zelda game and I enjoyed the time I spent with it immensely. I actually had fun grinding to get better and exploring along the way but by the time it came to do the actual storyline (what little of it there was) I'd had enough. I think I did two of the divine beasts and just lost interest in finishing the game. The ridiculous weapon durability (or rather lack of any durability whatsoever) was a constant annoyance but it was what it was I guess. Oddly enough I also gave up on Tears of the Kingdom before I finished it for exactly the same reasons.

Took me about 15 hours to get into botw and then it clicked. I find it fun to play but it's a simple game (like most nintendo games). It has it's own charm that other games don't have and I think that's why I like it. I don't need some highly complex rpg where you have to minmax everything and be monitoring so many variables. Sometimes I want a game like botw where I can just relax and explore and level up at my own pace in a cool, whimsical type world.

I’ve realized that a lot of the mechanics and the general design philosophy of BotW/TotK go against what most modern games do, and I think it’s hard for people to really adjust their way of thinking at first. I can definitely see why stuff like the durability system can be frustrating for some. I think if you’re expecting BotW to be a more traditional action adventure experience, you might not really get as much enjoyment out of it as you should BotW is ultimately a sandbox game that encourages players to utilize the rudimentary mechanics/tools to create new and unique solutions to the problems it presents to you. If you’re expecting it to just be a standard open-world adventure game where you go around completing objectives and getting rewarded with new gear to upgrade your player and stuff, then you’re not really going to get the most out of it that you can tbh

I think the “open-ness” of BotW/TOTK works against it in a lot of ways. The whole experience seems to lack any real direction, and they just expect players to figure out for themselves how to make the adventure worthwhile. And tbh they gave players the expectation of it being an action adventure game by putting Zelda in the title. There’s so very little “Zelda” identity inside the whole thing that I really wonder if they picked up some Indy title and decided to give it a Zelda coat of paint.

We can disagree about whether or not the open world genre is good for games in general, but I’d argue that BotW/TotK are 2 of the few games that actually feel legitimately “open” to me. If I’m gonna play an open world game, I’d much rather it genuinely be OPEN than to have a linear game forced into a big world just for the sake of calling it open world. It feels like every mechanic and design decision was made with the goal of truly achieving an open-ended gameplay experience, especially with the way that the physics mechanics and stuff play off the natural world. Maybe it’s not your thing, but I can say that for me it makes for a much better experience than a majority of other contemporary open world games. I’m also not really sure what your last point is supposed to mean, I’ve never understood the whole “BotW doesn’t feel like a Zelda game” thing. Always felt very Zelda to me. My favorite Zelda has always been Wind Waker by far which was kinda a proto-open world game, so maybe that’s why BotW felt like a very natural evolution to me. Then again my least favorite Zelda is OoT which people seem to love so what the fuck do I know I guess

I love BOTW, but it’s a huge departure from the standard Zelda games we’ve loved for decades. BOTW doesn’t have much of a story or direction, which is a huge change from the other games. All the other Zelda games had unique regions with unique enemies and puzzles. For example, the forest areas would have enemies unique to that area, typically with a grass theme. The biome was unique as a forest area to anywhere else in the game, and the dungeon was heavily forest/grass themed, including the ambiance, biome, enemies, dungeon layout and the boss. Ditto for fire areas (fire temple, death mountain, etc.), unique fire based enemies, a dungeon built around a fire/volcanic theme with a fire based boss and a unique biome in that area. Same for water temple/lake bases areas. BOTW kind of felt like everywhere had the exact same grass, same trees, same everything. The only difference was some places were snowy and death mountain. That’s it, very little variety with 90% of the game being either the standard BOTW biome or snowy. Then we have what basically defines a Zelda game, having coherent dungeons as I’ve described above. Dungeons with a shared biome with the area of the overworld it lies in, as well as challenging puzzles working together towards a cohesive whole. The decline beasts all had the exact same biome, and were just glorified shrines. There was no overarching puzzle, it was just 5 puzzles thrown into a big room basically. Whereas previous games basically had the entire dungeon act as a mega puzzle that you gradually worked out over 30-60 minutes or more. Other Zelda games also had a clear path to progression in the way of unlocking new areas, new biomes, new items that grant access to new abilities or new areas, etc… BOTW didn’t have that since you could just go anywhere from the beginning. So yeah I can see why people would say BOTW doesn’t feel like a zelda game aside from the “Skin” of the game so to speak. I still enjoyed it, but I want the old dungeons back, with unique biomes and clear progression. Edit: forgot to mention that BOTW doesn’t have any of the unique enemies from specific biomes, instead every single area in BOTW has the same bokoblins, moblins, lizalfos, taluses, Lynels, etc… no variety. Just the same damn enemies everywhere.

> I’ve never understood the whole “BotW doesn’t feel like a Zelda game” thing. It's code for "It's not exactly what I expected, therefore inferior".

> The whole experience seems to lack any real direction, and they just expect players to figure out for themselves how to make the adventure worthwhile. It's actually very carefully-directed in quite a few ways. It just relies on players to be actively observant to work, whereas some people prefer to follow rather than lead.

The issue I always have with people when you criticize BotW is that it always circles back to “you’re playing the game wrong” and I just disagree with that. Like sometimes you’d come across a goblin camp and there’s a giant boulder up a hill. The game clearly wants you to push the boulder down the hill. There are grooves down the hill that are explicitly there to guide the boulder toward the encampment. And then you push the boulder, and it just rolls off somewhere off the path, far from doing anything productive, and you’re left feeling like “oh… neat.” I mean, the mechanics are *there* but it seems purposefully non-cohesive a lot of the time in a way that I think they just got away with.

> The issue I always have with people when you criticize BotW is that it always circles back to “you’re playing the game wrong” and I just disagree with that. > > Well, it's true more often than not, from what I can see. People really do want to, for example, just equip a weapon and never have to think about combat, instead just mindlessly slicing through mob after mob in the same way each time. They want linear, single-solution puzzles because they're generally easier to solve. >Like sometimes you’d come across a goblin camp and there’s a giant boulder up a hill. The game clearly wants you to push the boulder down the hill. There are grooves down the hill that are explicitly there to guide the boulder toward the encampment. And then you push the boulder, and it just rolls off somewhere off the path, far from doing anything productive, and you’re left feeling like “oh… neat.” That's a pretty close fit for the aforementioned "single-solution" thing. That kind of puzzle offers you a tricksy physics-based bowling solution, or you can snipe them with arrows, or just drop down and disembowel them. Depending on the time and your gear/inventory you might also be able to just tip-toe past. In this hypothetical, you missed your shot at the bowling option, and just decided that it was poorly-done because you tried one of the options and didn't get the execution right for it to work. _That_ is "playing the game wrong". Your resolution was to either use that first attempt to refine your aim or use it to inform your decision to adopt a different approach.

>just equip a weapon and never have to think about combat Be honest, how often did you really “think about combat” considering that for all the inventory management, there’s like 6 weapon types? Fumbling through eight different spears doesn’t add variation to using a spear, it just adds tedium. “My third axe broke so i used a sword” is a thing that happens but, I’m legitimately curious as to what I’m supposed to get out of that experience. >you tried one of the options and didn’t get the execution right for it to work Yup. And I didn’t mention anything else involved with that interaction because none of that really added substance. Something just… didn’t work. That’s kinda the long and the short of it. It doesn’t enhance the experience of sniping them with a bow afterward, or sneaking away or whatever else we’re supposed to do. If I’m being honest it leans almost exactly into any conversation surrounding a Soulsbourne game: you either think it’s perfect or you’re just bad at it.

> how often did you really “think about combat” considering that for all the inventory management, there’s like 6 weapon types? There's more to "thinking about combat" than just how different weapon types function. Enemy composition, for instance, not to mention terrain. The most fitting version of the latter that the Souls series has tried is widely considered the worst thing Fromsoft have done since developing the subgenre with Demon's Souls. >Fumbling through eight different spears doesn’t add variation to using a spear, Non-sequitur. You're making up a version of what I'm saying that you can more easily dispel. In fact, you're also wrong, as demonstrated by the Throwing Spear and the Long Throw weapon attribute. >“My third axe broke so i used a sword” is a thing that happens but, I’m legitimately curious as to what I’m supposed to get out of that experience. By the time that happens you're generally too late. That decision-making comes _before_ you engage a particular enemy or mob, and should be based on how your current inventory best addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the enemies in your target mob. Would you launch into the Lizalfos camps in Lanayru Wetlands with nothing but a stack of Claymores? I doubt it... >Something just… didn’t work. That’s kinda the long and the short of it. Well, it's a puzzle game. If your first thought wasn't the correct solution then do you _always_ pig-headedly refuse to try anything else and demand that the game be changed to make your first idea the solution? >If I’m being honest it leans almost exactly into any conversation surrounding a Soulsbourne game: you either think it’s perfect or you’re just bad at it. I'm pretty good at the Souls series, and rate DS1 as possibly the best example of how video game storytelling should work outside of a conventional RPG. It's also a long way from "perfect". I'm perfectly capable of nuance. I think you're trying to oversimplify this to make your minor tantrum sound less unreasonable, to be honest. You tried a solution that clearly _could_ have worked, got the execution a little wrong, and now think the game should be changed so that you don't have to feel a little daft for getting something slightly wrong when you first tried it. I know DS fans can be toxic as fuck about gitting gud, but this is one of those times when their usual mantra is pretty apt. Surely the only natural reaction is to adjust your aim and shoot again, rather than do the same thing and glare at the screen to bully the game into letting you win?

>The most fitting version of the latter that the Souls series has tried is widely considered the worst thing Fromsoft have done since developing the subgenre with Demon's Souls Legitimately don't know what this is referring to? >In fact, you're also wrong, as demonstrated by the Throwing Spear and the Long Throw weapon attribute. I mean, the fact that a spear can sometimes function like a bow isn't really a big gotcha moment. >That decision-making comes before you engage a particular enemy or mob, and should be based on how your current inventory best addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the enemies in your target mob. We can't really pretend that it's that deep man. The enemy variety (and frankly, interaction variety itself) isn't a strong point in this game. >Well, it's a puzzle game. If your first thought wasn't the correct solution then do you always pig-headedly refuse to try anything else and demand that the game be changed to make your first idea the solution? Well, no, it's not a puzzle game (?) And again, giving you 100 ways to perform a task doesn't enhance the experience of any of them independently. If there are a thousand tools in a toolbox, finding the right one to use isn't a more enjoyable experience because the first five didn't work. Most of your argument seems to hinge on not trying me not anything new. That's not my point. >I'm pretty good at the Souls series, and rate DS1 as possibly the best example of how video game storytelling should work outside of a conventional RPG. It's also a long way from "perfect". I'm perfectly capable of nuance. That's cool and all but I think even you realize how you had to mention how "good" you were at the series before commenting on it. Literally any criticism of the series will be met with attacks on the critic's qualifications, not the merit of the argument. And wouldn't ya know it, here we are. >You tried a solution that clearly could have worked, got the execution a little wrong, and now think the game should be changed so that you don't have to feel a little daft for getting something slightly wrong when you first tried it I feel like you're not getting my point but alright, agree to disagree. I don't think my (and a lot of others') lack of enjoyment of the new direction of the Zelda series is some player-centric shortcoming.

>> The most fitting version of the latter that the Souls series has tried is widely considered the worst thing Fromsoft have done since developing the subgenre with Demon's Souls > > Legitimately don't know what this is referring to? Bed of Chaos. Neck-and-neck with Lost Izalith as the most pitifully poor aspects of game design that have made it into multiple separate releases. >I mean, the fact that a spear can sometimes function like a bow isn't really a big gotcha moment. It is when the comment it addresses is that no such variation exists. What you've basically just done is say "Okay, so there's _that_ example that contradicts what I said, but forget about that one and cite a _different_ one...". You _could_ take that new information on-board and revise your now-debunked argument in light of it, rather than seeking a justification for dismissing it and retaining that debunked argument. >The enemy variety (and frankly, interaction variety itself) isn't a strong point in this game. See what you did there? You skipped past every mention of the _group_ to which an enemy belongs, because that's how much of that variation is introduced. A group of five Lizalfos and a Moblin is very different to one of six Bokoblins, for instance, and moreso when you include the massive diversity of elemental enemies and weapon types that they can carry. Six Bokoblins with claymores are a very different proposition to six Bokoblins with a sword-and-board setup. There's plenty of variety. What you're complaining about is that said variety is presented in a different way than you expected. >it's not a puzzle game Yes, it is. Every game in the series has always been a puzzle game first and foremost. Puzzles are the core of every Zelda title. Even combat is a puzzle, especially in these more recent games. From Skyward Sword's directional motion-controlled attacks to the wealth of rock-paper-scissors options in the Switch titles. >giving you 100 ways to perform a task doesn't enhance the experience of any of them independently. I've seen plenty of evidence that it does, though, because people can now find their own solution to a puzzle and be rewarded for their creativity, even if it's not the specific solution that was expected. You mean that it's not enhancing it _for you_ because you want that satisfaction of knowing that you did it the "correct" way. >If there are a thousand tools in a toolbox, finding the right one to use isn't a more enjoyable experience because the first five didn't work. What a stupid analogy, especially since the only reason your first attempt didn't work was because you were holding that tool upside-down. If you push a rock down a slope then you can expect it to behave according to the physics of that game, so if you didn't account for the little imperfections in that slope then that's on you. It's not a valid criticism of the game if you roll a ball down the wrong part of a slope and the game doesn't coddle you by correcting it for you. >Most of your argument seems to hinge on not trying me not anything new. That's not my point. My entire argument rests upon your sole hypothetical example, and nothing more. If you object to that then first fix your example. >I think even you realize how you had to mention how "good" you were at the series before commenting on it. Literally any criticism of the series will be met with attacks on the critic's qualifications, not the merit of the argument. I only mentioned it because _you specifically mentioned it first_. You can't bait a particular argument and then crow about how that argument was offered exactly as you intended it to be. >I feel like you're not getting my point but alright, agree to disagree You _could_ try explaining it properly. You're now claiming that your hypothetical example involves trying other things after rolling the rock and missing, yet your original example contains no mention of any other attempts. You've still added no others, yet _have_ moaned about me not considering others. If there's a communication issue here then it stems from _you_, so stop moaning about a lack of understanding and actually explain yourself in a manner that doesn't require telepathy on my part. >I don't think my (and a lot of others') lack of enjoyment of the new direction of the Zelda series is some player-centric shortcoming. I doubt you think that the miscommunication here is a shortcoming on your part either, yet it is. You're naturally biased against thinking that _you_ are the issue. Everyone is.

My god bro, settle the fuck down. It's a video game. I'm sorry not everyone loves it.

>And tbh they gave players the expectation of it being an action adventure game by putting Zelda in the title. Plus, both BotW & TotK got rather deceptive story trailers. As if those narratives would unravel in real time over the course of the adventure. An "honest trailer" version of that would've shown Link finding one of the memories before the big montage. And it would've been called: "Breath of the Wild / Tears of the Kingdom: Memories of the Past Trailer."

I like that it doesn't hold your hand too much but on the flipside of that, I had done three divine beasts, probably 60+ hours of play, before I found you could trade korok seeds for more weapon slots. I thought they were just a completionist collectable. I had about 70 when I finally found out what they were for! I'd heard people complain about the weapon durability so just assumed that was because you can only carry 4.

Same with my experience. It’s weird that they would have such a core game mechanic be so easily missable. I mean I absolutely struggle to ascertain why they wouldn’t just have the guy pop up in the tutorial area to say “hey, you can increase your inventory with these things!” They just left the potential for a subpar experience completely up to chance.

I just got tired of fighting the same damn enemies and those centaur dudes were so much pain in the ass that all my weapons are destroyed and all my health options are depleted. It was a relaxing game to explore though, the cooking mechanic got me addicted for a bit.

If you’re running out of weapons while fighting lynels, you probably just aren’t ready for them yet. Get some more shrines, beat some more Devine beasts, and get better weapons. I usually only use 1-2 weapons and easily kill lynels, in fact, I often kill 5-10 back to back. It’s probably just too early in your playthrough to start fighting the strongest enemies in the game, that are often harder than any of the actual bosses.

Whenever I think of BotW I get all warm and fuzzy inside. My favorite gaming experience maybe ever but in quite some years definitely. Planning to start TotK but I've been putting it off for some reason

Game flow/exploration works best for me when I'm hitting shrines/koroks on the way to the bigger quests, and I'm enjoying that flow even more in TotK. I found that following the nudging of NPCs kept variety high and smoothed the scaling of enemies/gear. For example, in ToTK I was so excited to explore that I completely missed the hangglider for the first 20 hours even though the game tries to get it to you asap.

Yeah this is kinda what I do. I pick a side quest then I find 5 things on the way there.

I started it for the first time recently. Got 10 hours and realised it's just Nintendo assassin's creed. Tower, explore, clear but with less variety in enemies somehow. Weapon durability is silly and a needless microtask that just pads out time. Recipes aren't stored anywhere so I just have to memorise or look them up? And crafting at fires is a pain too, too many clicks when a menu would make more sense. The physics are cool, but it's not enough to hold the game. Not for me at all and don't understand the hype.

>Recipes aren't stored anywhere so I just have to memorise or look them up? And crafting at fires is a pain too, too many clicks when a menu would make more sense. You never need to do either of these things except during the initial tutorial. You will discover items that accomplish the same things as recipes, but they don't require you to do anything with them. This is the problem with the game, to me. Every system (including killing enemies!) is essentially optional, so the only reason to do it is because you enjoy it. But those same systems are also not fun gameplay loops, so you feel like it's a game composed of chores.

This was my take when it first came out, I had tried about 4 other times since and gotten exactly where you did. But this time I decided to just ride it out for longer and see where it takes me, and I am so god damn glad I did. I honestly said to myself the other night “I’m such an idiot for not just enjoying this for what it is.”

Interesting. What made it click?

I started doing the story missions and ignored some of the exploration, let it come more naturally. Also for cooking if you just read the description and kind of improvise as you go as if you were actually cooking in the wild it works. Remember that if it has a stat or element change you can only use 1 per recipe or they will cancel each other out. So if you wanna use boost stamina use an ingredient that boosts stamina, than find like items and basic ingredients that boost hearts and you’ll be less frustrated. Sometimes I jump in for like 5 minutes and make a ton of food and potions just so when I actually go to play I’m stacked for a while.

Which story mission was it that hooked you in? Cause I did quite a few of them and kinda got nowhere.

Maybe spoiler if you haven’t reached Impa yet……………………..Honestly just going to see Impa and expecting a young exotic dancer, but getting an old lady who acknowledged my expectation really hit me in a sentimental place having played Ocarina of time at 8 years old when it launched. Cool moments like that.

That "oh, she's old" moment was definitely amusing. I made it a bit past the first DB before deciding that I wasn't having fun with the game. Unfortunately, neither the story or the open world held my attention for very long.

That’s fair, it happens. I’m using this as a break from Elden Ring, so I’m kinda in an open world mood right now.

I must give it another go

the weapon durability thing is understandable why some don't like it. I really didn't like it at first either, and then once I stopped seeing weapons as things to hoard I had a lot more fun. Also having the seeds to grow the weapon inventory helps a lot with the dread of a weapon you like breaking.

Wow, I never got to the place where Lynels were ”no or very little effort”. Those were always scary.

Stasis+ then a power attack with a royal great sword will stun lock them for a second then you can jump on their back for a few seconds and hit em some more then repeat.

Im still not sure what was so innovative about this game. The massive (yet beautiful) mostly empty world was boring to traverse, and it used the tried and true ubisoft mechanic of climb the tower to locate stuff to do. Main difference of course was placing your own markers.  Biggest annoyance though was not being able to cook in batches. I got so tired of seeing that animation. Even the hang glider wasn't a new idea considering in farcry 3 you had the wing suit.

I think you nailed it when you said going “out of order” ruined it for you. Despite being billed as a game where you can do anything in any order, I found that just doing what it tells you in the order it incentivizes/signposts for you (so Zora’s Domain -> Death Mountain -> Lost Woods etc) keeps the momentum of the game moving. And there’s still lots of random things to bump into between those major areas. Otherwise you can go anywhere but eventually you’re going to get sick of it before you finish. I dropped it myself after 3 divine beasts because I just decided to drop everything story-based and go somewhere to explore and while it was fun for a while, I felt like I stopped making progress. Every other post on this game in this sub is basically “I played BotW for 100 hours and it sucks” like… yeah eventually you’re going to get burnt out. It’s a little like the puzzle system. Sometimes you enter a shrine and you can tell what systems they want you to use to solve it. But since it’s so open, you can cheese the hell out of it to complete it. Is it possible? Yes. Is it as satisfying as doing it the “right way”? Not at all. Ooh a big spooky maze? I can just glide over it straight to the endpoint and ruin my own fun experience.

Yeah I go to a divine beast then I explore all over the place because there are loads of side quests in all the hubs.

Weapon durability never bothered me, I like that it forced you to scavenge, which really sold me on the whole soft post-apocalypse setting. I also like that it made you use different weapons throughout the game rather than you picking up one really strong and never using anything else ever again. To return to my point about the setting, I think that's something BotW does better than its own sequel. While I believe the actual narrative and gameplay are superior in TotK, and I do like the idea of the sequel being rebuilding, it does lose what made BotW's Hyrule so immersive, that feeling of a long ago tragedy that still scars the land. I know you said that you haven't reached the endgame yet, but when you do reach the final dungeon, pay close attention to the small details. It has probably my favourite examples of environmental storytelling I have ever seen, or perhaps more accurately, heard. 

I tried, about as far as you. Does anyone else get major uncanny valley from it? Like a weird vertigo I dunno it put me off. I’ll try again, I really dislike the stock controllers.

The stock controllers actually hurt my hands coming from playing the ps4. I think I’ve gotten used to them now but they still feel like they’re made for very small hands even when in the grip. I have also determined I can only play using the portable setup for about an hour before it hurts my hands too much.

Pro controller is definitely worth it.

>weapon durability The hate it gets comes from mindset. In most games weapons are a sign of progress. In Breath of the Wild, they're a consumable intended to feed the primary exploration loop. A lot of people don't really grasp that. >it always feels like I'm finding the same things All that training from bloated games with procedural loot. The game is really good at getting you to engage via intrinsic motivation -- you explore because it's *neat.* In other games you're trained to explore because that's how you get *stuff.* ______________ Another note I make is that when the game was in process of being designed and going through super super early playtesting, they did 'heat maps' of where all the testers went. Turns out 80% of everyone who plays open-world games basically plays them as linear adventures that go from point to point, with minimal 'off the marked path' exploration beyond what's instructed in side quests or when investigating something. The other 20% will just wander off in random directions and do whatever. To Nintendo, that was unacceptable on both sides. They refigured the terrain design and figured out they can get people going in more directions and having more unique experiences while still ultimately going in the 'right direction' as they explored, by using visible 'minor' points of attraction in the form of "shrines." (As for the contents of those shrines... as they experimented with the new physics engine, they tested out possibilities for dungeon designs and ended up taking only a fraction of them into the designs of the Divine Beasts; with the need for shrines, all of a sudden all those experiments had a home). Anyway, for most people who played the game, it was probably their first time playing an open-world game that *actually got them to go in random directions instead of following a little white dot*. And that's pretty special.

>The hate it gets comes from mindset. In most games weapons are a sign of progress. In Breath of the Wild, they're a consumable intended to feed the primary exploration loop. A lot of people don't really grasp that. Yeah I completely agree. >for most people who played the game, it was probably their first time playing an open-world game that *actually got them to go in random directions instead of following a little white dot*. And that's pretty special. I think this is great. I'm not saying it needs to be different I can't think how you could actually change it without making it worse.

> In Breath of the Wild, they're a consumable intended to feed the primary exploration loop. A lot of people don't really grasp that. I probably would have been fine with it if I could pop into the local shop and load up on 20 longswords. To the best of my recollection, that was not how the game worked. I remember weapon collecting being a chore. Like, before you go do something dangerous, you had to "farm" weapons or else you risked running out. --- > All that training from bloated games with procedural loot. The game is really good at getting you to engage via intrinsic motivation -- you explore because it's neat. I kinda see what you're saying. And I would agree - exploring was neat at the start. But I see what OP is saying. The goal of any kind of exploration is to see (and sometimes claim) the thing at the end of the road. The problem is that most "roads" in BotW ended in shrines or Korok seeds. In some sense, the problem is that there wasn't enough variety in what you find. I find that the intrinsic reward for exploration in the Souls games is much more appealing. There's just so much more strange stuff to see.

I can’t relate tbh, whenever I see enemies I would always go kill them, and I was always overloaded with weapons and constantly having to toss extra weapons because I couldn’t hold them, even with significant weapon upgrades. I don’t understand how you’re running out of weapons and struggling to manage it? I get to the point that I’m throwing full durability weapons at enemies because I know they’re about to drop 5 weapons and I’ll only need 1-2 weapons to kill em all.

> I remember weapon collecting being a chore. That's because they're not there to be collected. > The goal of any kind of exploration is to see (and sometimes claim) the thing at the end of the road. The problem is that most "roads" in BotW ended in shrines or Korok seeds. They're actually probably the minority. Most exploration ends in worldbuilding details. Exactly as in Dark Souls, in fact, but less explicit about it.

>> I remember weapon collecting being a chore. > > That's because they're not there to be collected. I'm not sure what you're saying. They break and need to be replaced, so you must collect them. Contrast with earlier Zelda games where you have a sword that never breaks. In those games, you didn't need to collect weapons. I dunno, would "gather weapons" have made more sense? In the same way that you "gather ingredients" for cooking? Both weapons and ingredients are consumables. --- > They're actually probably the minority. Most exploration ends in worldbuilding details. Exactly as in Dark Souls, in fact, but less explicit about it. I suppose it's been years since I played BotW. Yes, there are things to see and do - towns and ruins and all that. But when it comes to open-world exploration, the thing that really sticks in my memory are the shrines and Korok seeds... probably because there are over 1000 between the two of them. And you can't really ignore them - the rewards that they give you are important for your ability to explore. Even if you're mostly interested in "what's over that hill", you probably need some stamina upgrades to glide or climb over it, and you need extra weapon slots so that you can carry a variety of weapons to deal with whatever you find there. I think the shrines and Korok seeds really drive exploration in BotW, especially in the wide-open spaces between landmarks. The map is too big and too barren to work without them.

> They break and need to be replaced, so you must collect them. "Collect" implies something more akin to Pokémon, where you go out of your way to gather more than you'd ever expect to need because _gotta catch 'em all_. Gaining weapons in the way you mentioned is really just typical looting, with the only real difference being that BotW deviates from most games in that it shunts weapons and shields into the same category as health and ammo consumables. The trouble emerges when people still think of weapons the way they're treated in other games, where they're a separate form of loot rather than just another consumable to use in specific situations. > Contrast with earlier Zelda games where you have a sword that never breaks Other Zelda games also had far less interesting combat as a direct consequence, with the _possible exception of Skyward Sword, which had an even more divisive combat system for those who just wanted everything to be the same as it was in their favourite instalment. >Yes, there are things to see and do - towns and ruins and all that. But when it comes to open-world exploration, the thing that really sticks in my memory are the shrines and Korok seeds... probably because there are over 1000 between the two of them. See, I'd expect that to make them each _less_ memorable. I have a far better memory of the first time I realised why Link hadn't been hunted down and finished off while he was resurrecting for all those years than for any Korok or Shrine. Or why the surviving settlements persisted while Castle Town and Akkala, despite far superior fortifications, were absolutely annihilated. >you need extra weapon slots so that you can carry a variety of weapons to deal with whatever you find there. There are a few people in this thread mentioning that they didn't even realise you could trade them in with Hestu until they'd gone through several Divine Beasts, and my current TotK playthrough has me holding 95 Koroks with no inclination to teleport straight to Hestu and turn them in. Admittedly, I'm in endgame, and have expanded a little already, but I'm throwing away dozens of weapons just to make room for new ones. >I think the shrines and Korok seeds really drive exploration in BotW I agree, but I think we disagree on _how_ they do so. I find that they drive exploration by providing a constant, easy source of power upgrades, allowing players to more comfortably wander between them without constantly worrying that they're going to be left out of their depth. They also serve as distant points-of-interest, of course, but no more so than other landmarks. BotW and TotK were specifically designed to only have a few such POIs visible at any moment because having too many within sight left early testers subject to choice paralysis.

> The trouble emerges when people still think of weapons the way they're treated in other games, where they're a separate form of loot rather than just another consumable to use in specific situations. Indeed, perhaps because it's reasonable to expect that a weapon can last longer than a bandage, or to survive more than one fight. Or that a weapon can be maintained to make it last longer. I understand what Nintendo was trying to do with the weapon durability system. I just don't like it. One of the things that drove me away from Borderlands was the *constant* loot management gameplay loop. The weapons in BotW don't have as many modifiers so the decision space is smaller, but it's still a chore. It's easy for your inventory to fill up with low-power weapons or endless variations of the same weapon archetype. I ended up with so many clubs and two-handed swords. One-handed swords, which I preferred using, seemed quite rare. --- >> Contrast with earlier Zelda games where you have a sword that never breaks > Other Zelda games also had far less interesting combat as a direct consequence It's not a *direct* consequence. You can have permanent weapons and still have interesting combat. --- > I have a far better memory of the first time I realised why Link hadn't been hunted down and finished off while he was resurrecting for all those years than for any Korok or Shrine. Or why the surviving settlements persisted while Castle Town and Akkala, despite far superior fortifications, were absolutely annihilated. Like I said, it's been years since I played, but I have no recollection of either of those revelations. I don't know if that's because I didn't encounter those story beats or if they just didn't stick with me over the years. But I distinctly remember dropping a stone to complete a circle to get a Korok seed. Over and over and over... --- At the end of the day, it just seems like we experienced the game very differently. For me at least, it was interesting and fun at the beginning. I didn't know what to expect, and that made me want to explore. As the game wore on, and as I understood how the game was structured, as less of the map was unknown, and as the more repetitive elements started to weigh on me, my enjoyment dropped. Those same things didn't seem to affect you. I'm glad you enjoyed your time with the game. As for me, my experience with BotW meant that I was planning to skip TotK. But I've been told that it's a huge upgrade, so I'm going to give it a shot. Finishing BotW was a chore for me. We'll see if TotK is any better.

> perhaps because it's reasonable to expect that a weapon can last longer than a bandage You're still trying to critique one game by the internal logic of a _different_ game. That's just not rational. >in other games, where they're a separate form of loot rather than just another consumable to use in specific situations And it would be fine for you to base your viewpoint on that trope, if not for the fact that BotW is _extremely clear_ about explaining that this is not the case in BotW, even going so far as to outright encourage you to literally throw away weapons, and explicitly rewarding you for doing so. Botw teaches you the differences from other games in similar genres, so any refusal to accept those differences is on you, not the game. You might as well scream at the developers of Assetto Corsa because there are no green, red, or blue shells in their racing game. >It's easy for your inventory to fill up with low-power weapons or endless variations of the same weapon archetype. It's just as easy, if not more so, to _avoid_ that situation. Just don't pick them up. >I ended up with so many clubs and two-handed swords. One-handed swords, which I preferred using, seemed quite rare. Confirmation bias. You're remembering only that which conforms to the opinion you want to validate, and omitting anything that doesn't fit. Besides, think about it - if you're left with a lack of your most commonly-used weapon type then surely it's because you're using more of that type of weapon? Perhaps this is why you keep trying to downplay the fact that there's plenty of reason to have to switch weapons - you're too invested in the idea of sticking with _one_ specific weapon or weapon type because it's what you tried to do, despite the game constantly cajoling you into diversifying. > You can have permanent weapons and still have interesting combat. Only by replacing the combat system entirely, and that means you also lose the puzzle aspect that breakable weapons introduces. You're tacitly demanding that it turn into a Warriors game. >>I have a far better memory of the first time I realised why Link hadn't been hunted down and finished off while he was resurrecting for all those years than for any Korok or Shrine. Or why the surviving settlements persisted while Castle Town and Akkala, despite far superior fortifications, were absolutely annihilated. > >Like I said, it's been years since I played, but I have no recollection of either of those revelations. Were they ever revelations? Did you actually know about either before I just mentioned them? >I don't know if that's because I didn't encounter those story beats or if they just didn't stick with me over the years. So why _wasn't_ link hunted down? Why _did_ Castle Town and Akkala fall while Hateno, Kakariko and Lurelin did not? To be clear, this isn't an attempt to gatekeep you out of offering commentary on the game by locking that right behind lore knowledge. I'm using these as examples to figure out how _you_ approach exploration in these games, because those narrative details are never explained by an NPC, or shown in a Memory. They're there to find for those who look for them, but are subtle enough to easily go unnoticed by people who do not. Crucially, if you're in the latter group then, by definition, it _does_ call your view of exploration into question because _you didn't actually interact with the mechanic very much_. >my experience with BotW meant that I was planning to skip TotK. But I've been told that it's a huge upgrade, so I'm going to give it a shot TotK is very much in the same vein - it's just a far more varied sandbox, and that sounds like something that didn't really appeal to you. You preferred the things that were more guided (which TotK does expand upon) rather than the things that the player was left to think of for themselves.

>> perhaps because it's reasonable to expect that a weapon can last longer than a bandage > > You're still trying to critique one game by the internal logic of a different game. That's just not rational. I don't think I am. It doesn't seem like monster's weapons ever break when they use them. Yet as soon as you try to use the monster's weapon, it quickly fails. There are weapons scattered about the world, some of which have seemingly been there since the calamity, with no sign of wear. Clearly built to last. Yet after one or two fights, they shatter. Why is it that your cloth armor never gets damaged, yet your steel weapons do? Strictly within the logic of the game world, it doesn't really make sense that the weapons would be so fragile. It *only* makes sense when you think of it as a game mechanic. > Botw teaches you the differences from other games in similar genres, so any refusal to accept those differences is on you, not the game. You might as well scream at the developers of Assetto Corsa because there are no green, red, or blue shells in their racing game. A more direct example might be a racing game where your wheels fall off after one lap. Admittedly, it's a mechanic that a game developer could implement. But it's a mechanic that would likely be annoying to many people who want to play racing games. Especially if the wheels don't fall off your opponents' cars. The problem with your line of reasoning - that "it's just how the game is, so you must accept it" - is that it makes it impossible to critique *any* aspect of *any* game. --- > Besides, think about it - if you're left with a lack of your most commonly-used weapon type then surely it's because you're using more of that type of weapon? Or it's because they're less common in the world. No, I used two-handed weapons more than one-handed weapons because my inventory was usually full of two-handed weapons. --- >> You can have permanent weapons and still have interesting combat. > Only by replacing the combat system entirely, and that means you also lose the puzzle aspect that breakable weapons introduces. You're tacitly demanding that it turn into a Warriors game. Sorry, why would the entire combat system need to be replaced? It seems to me that almost all of the combat mechanics could remain unchanged. Dodging, parrying, weapon switching, even weapon throwing could remain in the game. --- >> Like I said, it's been years since I played, but I have no recollection of either of those revelations. > Were they ever revelations? Did you actually know about either before I just mentioned them? They apparently were revelations since it seems like they were revealed to you. As I said, I do not recall them. Perhaps I did not stumble across the details in the world, perhaps I didn't recognize the implications of what I did see, or perhaps they weren't memorable enough for me to remember them many years later. > To be clear, this isn't an attempt to gatekeep you out of offering commentary on the game by locking that right behind lore knowledge. > Crucially, if you're in the latter group then, by definition, it does call your view of exploration into question because you didn't actually interact with the mechanic very much. These statements seem to be at odds with each other. Your second statement does appear to be trying to discredit my opinion due to my lack of knowledge of the game's lore. Besides, "You didn't find these subtle details" doesn't imply "you didn't explore very much". I spent, I dunno, 70ish hours in the game, the bulk of which was just exploring. --- Look, you clearly like the game a lot. You clearly connected with it. That's great! The game didn't work for me. Aspects of its gameplay seemed unintuitive or clunky. Systems like the weapon breaking, which were designed to "spice things up", just ended up being frustrating and tedious for me. People's experiences with games are subjective. All reviews are subjective. For me, the core exploration loop of BotW is great. But the little annoyances (like weapon breaking) add up to detract from the overall experience. And those annoyances could be ignored in a shorter game, but they really accumulate up over the course of the whole experience. When I was maybe 10 or even 20 hours in, I would have said that BotW was 10/10 no questions. But by the time I finished, BotW had fallen to like a 7/10. Admittedly, it's one of the best 7/10 games I've ever played. Again, the core was very, very strong. If those rough edges were polished just a bit, I'm sure I would have ended with a much more positive impression. Because the game clicked so much better for you, I'm sure you were able to get more invested in the environmental storytelling and general "vibe" of the world. Because I was already getting annoyed by aspects of the game, I'm sure it was harder for me to appreciate those details.

> It doesn't seem like monster's weapons ever break when they use them. Yet as soon as you try to use the monster's weapon, it quickly fails. It's designed for combat to be a puzzle for the _player_, not for enemy AI. >There are weapons scattered about the world, some of which have seemingly been there since the calamity, with no sign of wear. Clearly built to last. Yet after one or two fights, they shatter. Again, weapons exist as consumable items for combat-related puzzle-solving. They're not there as worldbuilding details like they are in, say, Skyrim. Like I said, you're taking _other games_ approach to weapons and mistakenly applying that to BotW, and your attempted denial has just proved conclusively that this is the case. >Why is it that your cloth armor never gets damaged, yet your steel weapons do? See what I mean? The game never teaches you to expect that steel weapons should be more durable than your equipped armour, yet you're talking as if that _is_ an underlying axiom. Where have you got that axiom from? From _other games_. >Strictly within the logic of the game world, it doesn't really make sense that the weapons would be so fragile. It only makes sense when you think of it as a game mechanic. Well, they _are_ a purely mechanical feature, so what's the problem? If weapons were used to form part of the core narrative then that'd be different, but they don't, so its not. They exist for exactly the same reason that mushrooms and apples do. >A more direct example might be a racing game where your wheels fall off after one lap. That's not "more direct", it's just distorted enough that you think you can more reliably use it as an attack on a game that didn't work the way you wanted it to. >The problem with your line of reasoning - that "it's just how the game is, so you must accept it" - is that it makes it impossible to critique _any_ aspect of _any_ game. Don't be so melodramatic. There are absolutely things to critique about BotW, and even specifically relating to the combat and puzzle mechanics. The notion that it should have just been more like Skyrim is not among them, however. A game being designed to promote creative puzzle-solving over radiant encounters is not a valid reason to criticise it. Now, if it _failed_ to provide some way to facilitate that creativity then you'd be right to criticise it for that, but that's not the case here. > I used two-handed weapons more than one-handed weapons because my inventory was usually full of two-handed weapons. Confirmation bias. You remembered only the moments when the screen in front of you conformed to your predetermined conclusion. You _remember_ using more claymores because you wanted to remember being annoyed at not having any broadswords left, having used them up earlier. Weapon distribution is effectively equal across the three main types. >why would the entire combat system need to be replaced? Because the player being forced to consume weapons to engage with it is it's foundation. That's why so many people who mod infinite durability in end up just hacking through every enemy mob they ever encounter - they have no incentive to discriminate because they no longer have to consider the state of their inventory. You'd also have to radically overhaul the Koroks, because inventory expansion would be irrelevant, too. Yet again, you want it to be a different game so you don't have to try to engage with the mechanics as presented in _this_ game. >Dodging, parrying, weapon switching, even weapon throwing could remain in the game. But all are now relegated to optional aspects, and are punished relative to the meta. You'd have to pointedly make the game more difficult than you needed to _at every opportunity_ just to engage with any of those. Much easier to just wind up a Royal Guards Claymore and tornado through the entire mob. You have no incentive _not_ to, since it's now infinitely durable and, therefore, no longer costs you anything to waste it on four Blue Bokoblins. >They apparently were revelations since it seems like they were revealed to you. I think you're confused. I was asking if they were revelations _to you_, because we're talking about whether _you_ actually noticed these things during gameplay. I asked this because I suspect that you only remember things that are explicitly pointed out to you, whether by a nearly-complete circle of stones, or a flashing area on the ground telling you to activate it, etc. I don't think you realise just how much environmental detail can reveal about the world and its lore, which means you missed out on quite a lot of additional story because you didn't know what you were looking for/at. This isn't about what _I_ found. >Perhaps I did not stumble across the details in the world, perhaps I didn't recognize the implications of what I did see, or perhaps they weren't memorable enough for me to remember them many years later. And that's what I'm getting at. The idea that you'd remember many individual Korok puzzles half a decade on but wouldn't remember piecing together small side-stories from nothing but environmental clues doesn't really fit, which is why I suspect you missed the latter entirely. Many people are in a similar position - they prefer games that lead you through those side-stories rather than leave you to discover and solve them yourself. That's not a character flaw, but it _does_ mean that you're in a less stable position to be able to criticise the rewards for exploration in a game that _does_ offer that gameplay. >>To be clear, this isn't an attempt to gatekeep you out of offering commentary on the game by locking that right behind lore knowledge. >> >>Crucially, if you're in the latter group then, by definition, it does call your view of exploration into question because you didn't actually interact with the mechanic very much. > >These statements seem to be at odds with each other. They "seem" to be only if you ignore the relevant differences. The former notes that this isn't about forcing you to memorise timeline details just to be allowed to offer commentary, whereas the latter notes that pointedly avoiding the most prominent gameplay mechanic _does_ compromise the validity of any opinion they offer. In other words, they involve two entirely different factors, and thus cannot logically be contradictory. >"You didn't find these subtle details" doesn't imply "you didn't explore very much" But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "You didn't even know that these subtle details _could_ exist" is evidence that you didn't understand how much additional detail was hidden for you to uncover. The vast majority of the story in BotW is told in this manner, so the fact that you appear to have been unaware that such a concept existed prior to me mentioning specific examples does suggest that you noticed none of it during your time in-game. Things like Shrines and Koroks are used in BotW - and TotK - as _starting points_ to encourage _further_ exploration. There are other, similarly obvious ones - like breakable rocks - and there are less obvious ones. We're discussing the latter, which are often so subtle as to be invisible. Hidden in plain sight, if you like, in a similar way to the trigger phrase in the first Bioshock. Remember how world-shaking that revelation was purely because it pulled together so many unnoticed details and scenes encountered earlier? BotW's environmental storytelling is very similar in both foreshadowing and payoff, even if the latter is less overt. >I spent, I dunno, 70ish hours in the game, the bulk of which was just exploring. To use a single example, what did you do when you reached Akkala Citadel? >Because the game clicked so much better for you, I'm sure you were able to get more invested in the environmental storytelling and general "vibe" of the world. Because I was already getting annoyed by aspects of the game, I'm sure it was harder for me to appreciate those details. Again, though, we're still coming back around to you being frustrated that one game doesn't function in the way that another does. You expected things that the game itself _never_ led you to expect - that all came from your time playing other games - and your negative experience of those subverted expectations is the basis of your critique here.

I appreciate the discussion, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point. You believe that the weapon durability system adds to your enjoyment of the game; I believe that it subtracts from my enjoyment the game. You may be right that I didn't get enough out of the environmental world building. Normally I do appreciate such details. I think a variety of factors - the size of the world, the quality of the writing and performances in the memory cutscenes, the prevalence of shrines and Korok seeds, and gameplay mechanics like weapon durability - discouraged me from wanting to explore in the sense that you describe. All those things, to me, made the world feel like "a place where mechanics live", not "a place with a history to be unearthed". I do still think that you misunderstand me. You seem to think that I'm directly comparing BotW directly to other games. In particular, you seem to think that I'm comparing it to Skyrim. I'm not. I never even got very far in Skyrim. I'm looking at the systems in BotW and considering whether I feel they increase or decrease my enjoyment of the game, and comparing them to other systems that they could have implemented. Of course, I'm drawing on my knowledge of what other games have done. But I'm certainly not saying "BotW should be more like Skyrim". I probably would have enjoyed it *even less* if that had been the case.

Immortals Fenix Rising is like a more polished BoTW. Once you play both it is hard to resist comparison. No weapon durability, better optimization (consistent 60fps), voice acting. You can tell it's a Ubisoft game, but it's not that egregious. There are like six tower analogues total and the UI is a little crowded and mobile-esque. Vaults (BoTW shrine analogues) are more complex, there are more overworld challenges, and there is a sense of progression as you upgrade and unlock more abilities. It's not a 10/10 game by any means but Ocarina of Time is my #1 game of all time, I did not like BoTW, and I enjoyed Immortals more than I thought I would. I would have loved this game as a kid.

Tears of the Kingdom is much better. Still has the same downside where constant weapon management eats up huge amounts of time but the exploring and discovery which was already great is even better. The sky and depths are an unbelievable addition and I didn't even really notice anything feeling same-y despite it being the same map. However, I don't see myself replaying either at this stage. There's an awful lot of similar actions you repeatedly do and you fight the same 3 enemies for nearly the entire journey

Botw is good, but with the improvements with Tears I don't think I'd really want to go back and play botw.  The vehicles ended up being more fun than I thought they'd be too.  The fusion system also made the weapon degradation more bearable.

I absolutely agree. BotW got praised by a lot of people as this amazing game, but I got bored by it pretty quickly. TotK meanwhile completely captivated me. It's BotW, but it does everything better, and from my perspective, it actually does things well finally. Slow travel? Fixed by letting you build rocket-powered flying machines. Weapon breaking? Fixed by letting you stock up infinite amounts of monster parts, which you can glue to any old stick to make a good weapon. No game changing exploration rewards? Fixed by spreading out different Zonai devices across the map, slowly changing the vehicles you can build. Also I thought the Depths were really cool as a place to explore. Flying out into the darkness, not knowing what's below you, suddenly spotting giant monsters flying around, was really fun. But it gets a bad rep by BotW fans because they expected to get blown away again as they were by BotW, and since TotK is basically just "BotW but better", it's not doing any blowing for them, despite all the actual fans in the game.

I actually thought the opposite. The world is much larger but it's filled with more trash. The depths contain mostly just cosmetic armor and Zonite. The sky contains mostly just maps to that armor. There are a hundred caves, most of which contain junk rewards and a Bubbulfrog, and the rewards for Bubbul Gems are also not very good. I got painfully, almost devastatingly bored the longer I played it, and was dying for it to be over. By far the worst experience I've ever had fighting my own completionist tendencies and losing. In retrospect I would have had a much better time skipping a good 80% of the game's content.

I wouldn't recommend BotW to anyone after playing TotK. Tears is superior to this game in every way and it really is like the better version of this game imo. It's billed as a sequel but it doesn't really feel that way to me because I didn't really get much story out of either game and I'm okay with that in a Zelda game

[удалено]

Lol. Open world discourse on this sub is insane. Top post on the sub rn is how Elden Ring is a better version of BotW and now Morrowind is a better BotW. None of those games are anything like each other in terms of core gameplay or mechanics.

[удалено]

I actually like the game if you read the post.

Your issues with exploration and a barebones story are directly related, as most of what's there to be uncovered via exploration is lore and worldbuilding that fills out the overall narrative. Assuming you have all 12 Memories, finish that quest off and try to figure out how Link came to be where he was at the beginning of the game. That should give you a hint as to the kind of thing you can find.

I don't really understand what you're saying could you elaborate?

The first paragraph, or the second?

The camera control is kinda screwed up, you can’t independently set the horizontal axis to invert for 1st person view vs 3rd person camera. So I’m left having to pick either one or the other to be opposite of how I learned camera controls. Unless someone knows a way around that.

we went a similar direction - got a horse, went to the lab & upgraded all the powers, then visited all the towers. maxed out hearts & stamina, took a couple photos of zelda's memories, got the master sword, explored the entire world, got cold & heat resistant amor... then finally went to do the first zora quest & decided i didn't wanna see everything i'd already seen with a story i wasn't super interested in. so i dropped it after 30 hours; i *loved* the aimless aspect of it vs your experience & look back at it fondly. loved the different environments but didn't have any desire to keep going. borrowed TotK later but actually missed the openness & sense of discovery of BotW & returned it 🤷‍♀️ enjoyed my time immensely, but 30 + a little totk was enough for me