Because it's not in the ballpark of its competitors. It's much closer to a 7th Gen system, same as the Wii U.The Switch is not underpowered. Why do people keep saying this?
You don't need to add busywork to fill a world. Really, filling a world shouldn't even be a problem with proper world building. The problem with BOTW is that they clearly made the world before adding content. That's mediocre design. You should build the world as you build content, and only add as necessary.TW3 is not some void, it just requires more than five seconds of walking to find something. Adding pointless busywork doesn't make a world feel less empty, it makes it cluttered
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm guessing it's the "I need a breather" argument? If that's the case, turn off the game and come back when you feel up to playing again. I don't like it being forced on me, especially if I haven't been engaged with much to begin with.It's like if you have a big meal. You say I'm full. Yeah you could foie gras style feed yourself and physically get more in but there is a distinction between the just right level of fullness and then the saturation and excess. The W3 would have contained excessive content if they tried to put much more in the world. So yeah it's full.
I agree and I don't think it will be either. To me it looks like that castle is taking off somewhere with Link and Zelda in it, my theory is that it will land somewhere far far way with Zelda dying when it crashes (hopefully) this will leave Link free to explore a vast new land free from the shackles of his oppressive royal overlord.i didn't hear the exact quote so i'm not exactly sure how loosely i should interpret it, but calling it the "same hyrule" doesn't mean it has to be geographically identical necessarily.
The assumption being that unless there is a certain amount of content density in a game that somehow it has failed. Having things to do over a smaller area (vs a larger area) there is absolutely no sense of exploration at all if there is something at every turn. I think I'd rather that and have a bigger world than a smaller one, actually botw starts to feel rather small after a while even without the Master Cycle. (Nintendo headed the right direction with botw, I think this next game will probably be about the same size geographically but I hope what ever they have planned after this is even bigger)It's the content to space ratio that determines whether something is empty or not. In the case of BOTW, there is so much space I don't have faith they can make the amount of content needed to fill it...
and their last attempt at trying not only failed, but involved lazily copy/pasting the same content over and over in a desperate effort to pad things out. They didn't even come close.
And yet plenty of games on the NES and SNES that even OoT dwarfs in size are plenty fun to explore. Using another 3D Zelda game as an example, Majora's Mask is fun to explore. Not in spite of the small world, but because of the small world and how easy it was to find unique and interesting things.The assumption being that unless there is a certain amount of content density in a game that somehow it has failed. Having things to do over a smaller area (vs a larger area) there is absolutely no sense of exploration at all if there is something at every turn.
Obligatory response while you stall for time to figure out what your argument is or how you can get out of implying that the "feeling" of exploration is more important than the actual exploration itself and the fun having it.Conflating "sense of exploration" with "fun to explore"
I did not imply anything. You made an assumption without actually addressing what I said.Obligatory response while you stall for time to figure out what your argument is or how you can get out of implying that the "feeling" of exploration is more important than the actual exploration itself and the fun having it.