Inevitable BotW2 backlash?
- Thread starter Spirit
- Start date
Zachie
Moo
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2016
The Switch is not underpowered. Why do people keep saying this?
I think that with the castle seemingly rising out of the ground there's going to be some kind of seismic event and the overworld will be changed.
I think it will be fine. I trust Nintendo to add some new areas, expand some old ones, add new abilities, and obviously add new shrines and dungeons. A very similar overworld isn't the be all and end all.
DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
Because it's not in the ballpark of its competitors. It's much closer to a 7th Gen system, same as the Wii U.
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.
Leaving the player to do nothing is inexcusable, whether it be AFK transportation (tWW sailing and BOTW horses) or absentmindedly holding forward on the control stick while you wait for something to happen. It is the absolute worst flaw a game can have. The game shouldn't be so inactive and unengaging that I have time to check my email or Twitter while traveling the world. I have enough **** on my schedule, I only have a few hours to game as it is, I don't want the majority of it wasted doing nothing when I came to have fun.
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.
- Joined
- May 7, 2018
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.
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)
DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
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.
But really, this is the most ass backwards thing I've ever heard. Somehow having things to find and discover somehow ruins any sense of exploration, but having nothing to find or the same thing over and over enriches it. ...And please, for the love of God, don't act like you don't understand what hyperbole is and try to say "but there isn't literally nothing". It just wastes time.
- Joined
- May 7, 2018
Conflating "sense of exploration" with "fun to explore"
DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
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.
- Joined
- May 7, 2018
I did not imply anything. You made an assumption without actually addressing what I said.
DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
To be honest, you don't even seem to know what you said. You look like you're stalling for time to explain it.
Night Owl
~Momentai
I think it's too early to tell how much backlash there will be, (and there will always be some). For myself, it depends on how well they balance the new with the familiar. If they take the balance of ALBW and tip it towards adding new areas and change up the old ones significantly, then it will turn out just fine. I really enjoyed ALBW and thought they did a great job of revisiting the ALTTP map and changing things up. It felt familiar and fresh at the same time.
Now BotW felt like they didn't quite use the world to it's fullest potentials. Some areas like the Hera Region, the lost temple, and the springs of knowledge, wisdom, and power felt under utilized. Some of those places had structures that felt like they should have more significance than just a shrine. The lost temple should have been a fleshed out dungeon. Akala citadel also would've been a great dungeon location. There just is a lot more that could be done with the world that I think it would be a shame if they didn't try to flesh out the world a bit more.
That being said, I thought Botw did a really good job of being a world worth exploring and playing around in. This is the first game that Ive put over 200 hours into without it feeling like a chore, (except for the hours korok hunting, I have less than 100 left to find). I think most of my time playing has been spent doing whatever I felt like doing playing with different abilities. I don't necessarily want to always be bumping into a quest or a shrine; the game got a lot more fun and relaxing for me once I found most of the shrines and had the sonar be quiet during my exploration.
Tl;dr as long as they flesh the world out more fully without going overboard and being too content dense. I'll be a happy owl.
Now BotW felt like they didn't quite use the world to it's fullest potentials. Some areas like the Hera Region, the lost temple, and the springs of knowledge, wisdom, and power felt under utilized. Some of those places had structures that felt like they should have more significance than just a shrine. The lost temple should have been a fleshed out dungeon. Akala citadel also would've been a great dungeon location. There just is a lot more that could be done with the world that I think it would be a shame if they didn't try to flesh out the world a bit more.
That being said, I thought Botw did a really good job of being a world worth exploring and playing around in. This is the first game that Ive put over 200 hours into without it feeling like a chore, (except for the hours korok hunting, I have less than 100 left to find). I think most of my time playing has been spent doing whatever I felt like doing playing with different abilities. I don't necessarily want to always be bumping into a quest or a shrine; the game got a lot more fun and relaxing for me once I found most of the shrines and had the sonar be quiet during my exploration.
Tl;dr as long as they flesh the world out more fully without going overboard and being too content dense. I'll be a happy owl.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2011
Honestly, the only backlash I'm seeing is from people here, same as with BotW. Everywhere else online seems to love this idea.
I'm still running with my theory that timeshift stones are involved, and if its true then it would be interesting to see if they could use that mechanic to freshen up the world. You could be exploring the same world but at different points in time. I don't like the Dark World idea because it's been done to death and makes the overworld exploration seem inconsequential to me.
Either way, I love BotW's overworld. I'd be totally down for another game in it regardless of drastic changes to the geography. Games are getting bigger and bigger, to the point which development times are growing larger with every added square mile. If developers can find ways of getting good games to us quicker by developing worlds that can span multiple games, I'm all in.
I'm still running with my theory that timeshift stones are involved, and if its true then it would be interesting to see if they could use that mechanic to freshen up the world. You could be exploring the same world but at different points in time. I don't like the Dark World idea because it's been done to death and makes the overworld exploration seem inconsequential to me.
Either way, I love BotW's overworld. I'd be totally down for another game in it regardless of drastic changes to the geography. Games are getting bigger and bigger, to the point which development times are growing larger with every added square mile. If developers can find ways of getting good games to us quicker by developing worlds that can span multiple games, I'm all in.
- Joined
- May 7, 2018
Explain what exactly? What are you having a hard time understanding? (I don't accept your logical fallacies, pretty simple)
Already a step in the right direction. BOTW biggest flaw was perhaps the fact that they wasted so much time making an oversized world that the game turned out to be a sight seeing simulator with virtually nothing interesting within. Now they can skip the worldbuilding crap and go straight to making actual content.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
I think the tomb of Ganon isn't Calamity Ganon or any other form of Ganondorf. I think it's the tomb of Demise. I also think that Ganon/Ganondorf/Demise isn't the main antagonist of BotW2, he's just a distraction of the real antagonist. It's the green hand of whatever dark force it's coming from that's the main Villian. If they use Ganon in a sequel after they just killed him, it wouldn't be too good of a game.