Breath of the Wild How much of the botw debate do you think boils down to qualitative vs quantitative developments?

[Dogzilla]

Qualitative = novel changes, such as function

Quantitative = changes in degree, such as strengthening weapons or toughening armour

Botw is an open design in open spaces (except for the intro and some closed design to access each divine beast). The benefit of this whole approach was the total freedom to explore, but the cost was in both story progressions and item progressions, the latter of which could only develop quantitatively.

Compare this to the semi-open design in semi-open spaces of OoT, where the narrative structure kept various areas closed until you had progressed in the story. The cost of this was being constricted in where you could go, but the benefit was in both story progressions and qualitative item developments (plus a bit of quantitative with things like bomb bag size, arrow bag size, sword strength etc).

So when it comes to overall fan critiques of botw, how much do you think the preferences all boil down to the categories of qualitative vs quantitative?

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

I don't think it has much of an impact really
the more important aspect is the tradeoff between emergent gameplay and cohesive narrative and progression

 

[Dogzilla]

I don't think it has much of an impact really
the more important aspect is the tradeoff between emergent gameplay and cohesive narrative and progression

Reasoning?

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

Reasoning?

I guess this is more of a subjective take since narrative and progression are important to me when talking about what I like in games. I like feeling that I've accomplished something and the sandbox-esque style of botw's physics-focused gameplay doesn't do that for me
but the idea is that the devs can't predict every single scenario that a player may encounter so can't actually structure a cohesive linear gameplay experience... so you're stuck with this half-story that doesn't really do a good job of characterizing the cast and offers little room for character progression when compared to a more linear story like wind waker or skyward sword.

I can't say this is everyone's reason, but I honestly haven't seen anyone talking about "lack of rewards" as a reason
also the shiekah slate and champion powers are qualitative

 

[Dogzilla]

@Mikey the Moblin

Hm, even though we are in fact now
talking about your personal preferences (as opposed to objective reasons), I’m not convinced your reasons don’t still boil down to qualitative vs quantitative.

You do have something of point about champion powers. Rivali’s Gale is a novel new function, Urbosa’s fury is a stronger new weapon, Daruk’s protection is a stronger new shield, and Mipha’s Grace is stronger life. The latter 3 lean more toward a matter of degree (quantitative), although there’s some novelty involved (qualitative).

I’d argue though that they aren’t particularly novel and all are inessential, and they can’t be novel or essential because they derive from the open world design. When you close the world more, it allows for qualitative developments, especially novel ones.

It’s true though, story progressions are a big part of all this, so perhaps the point of my original question mainly refers to the gameplay.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Well Breath of the Wild had high reviews across the board, so this probably doesn't matter much. However, some people do criticize things like the lack of dungeons, and the item durability, and these are quantitative aspects of the game. There are a lot of shrines scattered through the overworld, but no proper traditional dungeons that would take an hour or so to complete, and many people feel that the Divine Beasts had nothing unique about them visually, so they hardly count as dungeons either. Weapons always breaking, for some, made it feel like none of the weapons actually had any worth.

Regardless of those issues, most people still enjoy the game so I don't think it's a matter of it dragging reviews of the game down, but fans considering what they want from the series with future installments.

 

[Dogzilla]

Well Breath of the Wild had high reviews across the board, so this probably doesn't matter much. However, some people do criticize things like the lack of dungeons, and the item durability, and these are quantitative aspects of the game. There are a lot of shrines scattered through the overworld, but no proper traditional dungeons that would take an hour or so to complete, and many people feel that the Divine Beasts had nothing unique about them visually, so they hardly count as dungeons either. Weapons always breaking, for some, made it feel like none of the weapons actually had any worth.

Regardless of those issues, most people still enjoy the game so I don't think it's a matter of it dragging reviews of the game down, but fans considering what they want from the series with future installments.

Agreed, the reviews are definitely mixed, including a love of the open world freedoms but also a sense of lacking the traditional progressions.

Regarding the divine beasts, I think these were also necessarily limited because of the open world design. If you consider that you progress inside all Zelda dungeons using the novel function of that dungeon’s item, then there was actually no way to repeat this method in the divine beasts. Unless, of course, the item within the divine beast is gained midway through like dungeons, but then again, as I mention in the post above, only Revali’s Gale is all that qualitative, meaning that dungeons can’t really be designed around a mainly quantitative item.

 

[GZ Zelda]

Botw is an open design in open spaces (except for the intro and some closed design to access each divine beast). The benefit of this whole approach was the total freedom to explore, but the cost was in both story progressions and item progressions, the latter of which could only develop quantitatively.

Compare this to the semi-open design in semi-open spaces of OoT, where the narrative structure kept various areas closed until you had progressed in the story. The cost of this was being constricted in where you could go, but the benefit was in both story progressions and qualitative item developments (plus a bit of quantitative with things like bomb bag size, arrow bag size, sword strength etc).

I have opposite definitions to you. Story progression and item progression develop qualitatively, while complete and total freedom is developed quantitatively.

the more important aspect is the tradeoff between emergent gameplay and cohesive narrative and progression

You've just used different terms to describe the same phenomenon: freedom vs. linearity. Quantity vs. quality.

Quantity is a pure numbers game. How many Korok seeds? How many shrines? How many locations? How many mini experiences in this massive world? Quality is an experience gem. Where to next? What's the story? Who are the characters? What does this item do and what's the next one?

The opening Kokiri Forest section of OoT and the subsequent dungeon has greater QUALITY to the free expanse, greater-in-quantity experience of the Great Plateau and its four shrines. The item progression is of greater QUANTITY in BotW just because of the amount of things you can do with Stasis alone but you can never have the same quality experience as you can with the hookshot. The path to Death Mountain in OoT is linear: first talk to Zelda, then get the letter, then talk to the guard, then get the bracelet and go to Dodongo's Cavern, and it is all of high quality. The path to Death Mountain in BotW is free: maybe go to Kakariko, or the Lanayru Wetlands, or get lost in Akkala. You choose.

What I think works so well about BotW, though, is that it builds in seamlessly an entire Ocarina of Time adventure (without the narrative, which I couldn't care less about, Zelda story is generally bad). You first go to the stable, get the Fire Resistance potions, go to the Southern Mine, buy some armor, go to Goron City, then the Northern Mine, then the Yunobo stealth section and then go to Vah Rudania. That is almost shot for shot the process of getting to Dodongo's Cavern after Kokiri Forest but that's not even all of it, because you could do any of the dungeons in BotW, or NONE of them and solely focus on the shrines. This is why I think BotW outshines OoT and many other Zelda games: it does both quantity and quality (albeit without the uber-satisfying item progression) and it does quantity superbly and quality, like, fine or whatever, but that still adds up to the best Zelda game.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

You've just used different terms to describe the same phenomenon: freedom vs. linearity. Quantity vs. quality.

I don't necessarily agree that freedom in a game can't be quality content, it probably depends a lot on preference though. For me TES: Morrowind, which is basically a free-roam world, has a lot of quality to make exploration worthwhile.

 

[Dogzilla]

@GZ Zelda

Yes, didn’t really specify what story progressions are, but I agree they’re qualitative. They could become more quantitative if there’s a repeated plot beat (eg help so and so find her chickens, and then help her neighbour do the same thing, and then her neighbour etc). Item progression could be more quantitative if the item functions the same, but is extended. I would count the long shot as one of these. For simplicity’s sake, item progressions are qualitative, OoT-style.

As for the idea of OoT inside BoTW, I don’t think I share the sentiment. It’s personal preference, but for me the Zelda story progressions (admittedly cliched and shallow) pins all the rest together. Yes, the item progressions are like an inspiring sequence of Christmas presents, but the wondering around without story urgency is both a freedom-blessing and an aimlessness-curse. Yes, you can do sidequests and any divine beast, but the lack of necessity means a lack of drive. For me. Again, personal preference and I don’t think it’s even possible to have both ways!

I don't necessarily agree that freedom in a game can't be quality content, it probably depends a lot on preference though. For me TES: Morrowind, which is basically a free-roam world, has a lot of quality to make exploration worthwhile.

Don’t mistake qualitative for quality. It simply refers to the category that’s not quantifiable. Flavours are qualitative, whereas money is quantitative. Doesn’t mean that one has more or less inherent value than the other.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

You've just used different terms to describe the same phenomenon: freedom vs. linearity. Quantity vs. quality.

Quantity is a pure numbers game. How many Korok seeds? How many shrines? How many locations? How many mini experiences in this massive world? Quality is an experience gem. Where to next? What's the story? Who are the characters? What does this item do and what's the next one?

they were talking about it purely in regards to item upgrades

You first go to the stable, get the Fire Resistance potions, go to the Southern Mine, buy some armor, go to Goron City, then the Northern Mine, then the Yunobo stealth section and then go to Vah Rudania.

except you don't, because literally you were the only person to do it this way because emergent gameplay

 

[MapelSerup]

Over the past year or so, BOTW has begun receiving a lot of backlash regarding its relative lack of story progression. This is especially true in forum communities like this one. Now, I'm not sure whether or not this is just a vocal minority, but some valid arguments are to be made; some more story would likely make the game even better as long as it didn't remove the freedoms attributed to the game. Perhaps these were planned, but Nintendo cut them out to reduce development time, it already having lasted a long while? Personally, I love BOTW just as much if not more more than I love the games before it. However, I've even seen someone go as far as to say it "ruined Zelda." Ultimately, it is a qualitative decision, and one that seems to get people quite heated.

 

[Dogzilla]

Over the past year or so, BOTW has begun receiving a lot of backlash regarding its relative lack of story progression. This is especially true in forum communities like this one. Now, I'm not sure whether or not this is just a vocal minority, but some valid arguments are to be made; some more story would likely make the game even better as long as it didn't remove the freedoms attributed to the game. Perhaps these were planned, but Nintendo cut them out to reduce development time, it already having lasted a long while? Personally, I love BOTW just as much if not more more than I love the games before it. However, I've even seen someone go as far as to say it "ruined Zelda." Ultimately, it is a qualitative decision, and one that seems to get people quite heated.

The root problem here is that it’s not possible even in theory to have a turning plot in a truly open world. That’s why botw reverted to essentially just backstory ... because it’s not plot that needs to move forward during the gameplay.

A pseudo-open world is another option, such as in Witcher 3, where it’s a 3-act story set in a pseudo-open world. I may be mistaken but this is my understanding of it! By ‘pseudo’ I mean the enemies in some areas are actually too tough to bypass, so you have to first level up by completing main plot and subplots, thus being compelled toward a more linear design of plot turns. I call this pseudo-open world because the later areas are quantitatively locked by degrees of tough enemies instead of qualitatively locked by keys and special items.

Besides this approach making a game more RPG than adventure (something Zelda is unlikely to do), one downside of this approach is that subplots become inaccessible after certain plot points. I suspect botw developers wanted to remove any sense of lost opportunities.

But really, this whole thing of botw needing more story is a nice idea, but literally impossible to do, even in theory. It’s a tradeoff between open world and progressions (item progressions and plot progressions)

 

[MapelSerup]

The root problem here is that it’s not possible even in theory to have a turning plot in a truly open world. That’s why botw reverted to essentially just backstory ... because it’s not plot that needs to move forward during the gameplay.

A pseudo-open world is another option, such as in Witcher 3, where it’s a 3-act story set in a pseudo-open world. I may be mistaken but this is my understanding of it! By ‘pseudo’ I mean the enemies in some areas are actually too tough to bypass, so you have to first level up by completing main plot and subplots, thus being compelled toward a more linear design of plot turns. I call this pseudo-open world because the later areas are quantitatively locked by degrees of tough enemies instead of qualitatively locked by keys and special items.

Besides this approach making a game more RPG than adventure (something Zelda is unlikely to do), one downside of this approach is that subplots become inaccessible after certain plot points. I suspect botw developers wanted to remove any sense of lost opportunities.

But really, this whole thing of botw needing more story is a nice idea, but literally impossible to do, even in theory. It’s a tradeoff between open world and progressions (item progressions and plot progressions)

The way you describe a "pseudo-open world" is honestly how the original Zelda was. Lynels were strewn about the map to keep you out of places you weren't meant to be, but you were still able to get past them if you're strong enough. The same is true of the enemies in the dungeons, many of which you can do out of order if you're skilled enough. This lets a more skilled player go back and try things that weren't locked off by gates but by difficulty.
As BOTW was designed to return more to the formula of the original, this sort of gating was kept in place. This along with the many ways you can combat enemies makes for a lot of replayability. Will you sneak around the Lynel to grab the shock arrows, grab some upgrades first, or maybe this time fight your way through with your four hearts? A lot of hype was drummed up about the fact that you can go try and fight Ganon from the very beginning if you're skilled enough. Honestly, a lot of the points you're making about Witcher 3 apply to BOTW.

 

[Dogzilla]

The way you describe a "pseudo-open world" is honestly how the original Zelda was. Lynels were strewn about the map to keep you out of places you weren't meant to be, but you were still able to get past them if you're strong enough. The same is true of the enemies in the dungeons, many of which you can do out of order if you're skilled enough. This lets a more skilled player go back and try things that weren't locked off by gates but by difficulty.
As BOTW was designed to return more to the formula of the original, this sort of gating was kept in place. This along with the many ways you can combat enemies makes for a lot of replayability. Will you sneak around the Lynel to grab the shock arrows, grab some upgrades first, or maybe this time fight your way through with your four hearts? A lot of hype was drummed up about the fact that you can go try and fight Ganon from the very beginning if you're skilled enough. Honestly, a lot of the points you're making about Witcher 3 apply to BOTW.

It’s true that it’s not really pseudo, it’s more like it’s steered. I’m trying to find a prefix that distinguishes between an open world where you can easily go anywhere and an open world where you have to beat Punchout’s Mike Tyson to go somewhere the developers don’t intend for you to go first ... it’s virtually impossible, but technically possible. Perhaps a constrained open world, whether slightly or very? Dunno, but I’m sure you get what I mean.

As for Witcher 3, which parts specifically line up with botw?