Breath of the Wild Is Breath of the Wild a good foundation for the future of Zelda?

[Spirit]

You wouldn't think that BotW was as polarising as Skyward Sword or the Wind Waker due to how much critical acclaim it has recieved.

But for some out there BotW is the last straw and has pushed Zelda into a direction some people don't want to go and this direction is one the series will continue until the next big shift.

So, for you personally, is BotW a good foundation for the future of Zelda?

Are you looking forward to playing five or so more games like BotW over the next twenty years like we all did with OoT?

 

[Dio]

BoTW was basically a sandbox but with a basic and optional story. So you could say it is the foundation for a proper game.

Apart from the weapon breaking it's not what BoTW did that was the problem, rather it is what it didn't do or expand upon.

I like open world games. My favourite game Witcher 3 is open world and it did have a proper story, and side characters had real backstories and side stories and actually had their place in the world besides just filling it. So if the next Zelda just had a proper story and developed its characters and kept the open world stuff it might actually be a good game.

 

[Night Owl]

I loved BoTW because I was finally free to do whatever I wanted. I tend to play Zelda games in general to explore and find treasure rather than complete the game or be told a good story.
My favorite games in the series tend to be ones where I feel more free to explore and do as I wish, AlTTP, WW, MM, MC, to name a few. My least favorites tend to feel like I'm really stuck on a set path such as SS and ST. BoTW was a breath of fresh air, and I feel a step in the right direction because it allowed me to truly embrace my curiosity.

Do I think BoTW is perfect? No not at all, the story and characters could have been implemented much better or given more life. There could have been Larger mega shrines that are more dungeon like and reward 4 spirit orbs at once, this would have helped reduce the repetitiveness of combat shrines or blessing shrines. (I hated the blessing shrines that I literally did nothing to open except maybe blow up a rock)
I do think that future Zeldas should embrace BoTW's goal of open exploration, while fleshing the world out more in general.

 

[DarkestLink]

No. It's fine for a spin off series, but BOTW is the antithesis of the Zelda formula, which is the core of Zelda's identity. It's honestly disheartening to see something as unique as Zelda replaced with an Open World series of all things. We have too many of them as it is.

 

[mistertc73]

for the first question i would be a little bit undecided, though a tad closer to no

for the second question it is a definite no, maybe one more in the likes of BotW but not more than that

 

[Castle]

No.

We don't need a Zelda skin of the same game Ubisoft releases twice every year.

 

[YIGAhim]

You wouldn't think that BotW was as polarising as Skyward Sword or the Wind Waker due to how much critical acclaim it has recieved.

But for some out there BotW is the last straw and has pushed Zelda into a direction some people don't want to go and this direction is one the series will continue until the next big shift.

So, for you personally, is BotW a good foundation for the future of Zelda?

Are you looking forward to playing five or so more games like BotW over the next twenty years like we all did with OoT?

It was bare bones in terms of structure that I would want to keep, so kinda/

THey just need to fix about everything

 

[Aku]

You wouldn't think that BotW was as polarising as Skyward Sword or the Wind Waker due to how much critical acclaim it has recieved.

But for some out there BotW is the last straw and has pushed Zelda into a direction some people don't want to go and this direction is one the series will continue until the next big shift.

Eh, people loved to gush how game changing and good Ocarina was and how it gave them twee memories of being lil' wee tykes barely old enough to hold a controller, easily forgetting that fans of the even older Zeldas had those same twee memories. The difference being however is that the first gen had the experience of having their games 'overridden' in importance when OOT came out, followed by a bunch of games that emulated that game, and even got given a timeline centering it.

Now there is a new game that is getting the exact treatment and lauding that OOT did, and it's doing the exact same thing to OOT and it's related games as OOT did to the first games. Some OOT fans aren't going to like that this game is embodying the new direction it takes the games, but OOT previously took the games in a direction different then the older games, in the same manner.

So, for you personally, is BotW a good foundation for the future of Zelda?

Are you looking forward to playing five or so more games like BotW over the next twenty years like we all did with OoT?

Yes. It was a long overdue change, however Nintendo needs to keep innovating and not be content to keep hanging it's hat on one game. Keep the game changing conventions they applied, keep each game fresh and keep the exploration and intrigue, but don't coast on it's success or get lazy or it will be post-OoT all over again with a gradual decline in fans. I think however they sound really determined to keep their present success going, hopefully making them unlikely to slack off.

 

[the8thark]

I honestly believe it's the minority that hated Breath of the Wild. I think the majority just bought the game and really enjoyed it.
This direction? I think the overall idea will keep going but specifics like breakable weapons or shrines might come and go from future games. I do think this change in direction was totally needed.

Are you looking forward to playing five or so more games like BotW over the next twenty years like we all did with OoT?

OOT did copy many things from ALTTP though. One could almost say OOT is a 3D reimagination of ALTTP. To answer your question though my answer is yes. I hope whover directs the next games does not revert back to the old formula.

 

[Hyrulian Hero]

The game was phenomenal. If not for Sterling's borderline libelistic troll review of the game, it would be the second highest rated game of all time instead of the third. I say this simply to make clear that I believe the game is truly fantastic. That being said, I prefer a linear structure in my games for the most part. Granted, I've played and enjoyed open world games on many occasions. I still play Skyrim to this day, for instance, but it's not necessarily the direction in which I would most like to see Zelda go.

Here's a thought: make open air Zelda games a third branch of development. We still get top-down and/or side-scrolling Zelda games on handheld and mobile devices and we split the 3D Zelda games into two divisions: open air and linear. Yeah, I just colonceptioned that sentence. Nintendo has the capital, the hardware, the diversity, and finally a cache of enough good will in gamers to beef up the Zelda team.

This is the time for a push. Nintendo is branching out into theme parks, book series, productions like symphonies and movies, online, and mobile. To add a third Zelda production team would be daring and quite possibly disastrous but I think this could be the time to do it. Especially with the Switch, it's the perfect platform from which to launch such a campaign.

 

[DarkestLink]

The game was phenomenal. If not for Sterling's borderline libelistic troll review of the game, it would be the second highest rated game of all time instead of the third.

How was it a troll review? I didn't personally agree with it, I thought he was way too hung up over durability while letting significantly worse issues slide past, and I think Jim is an insufferable SJW, but it was one of the very few critic reviews that felt genuine. Like he actually took his time, played the game, and seriously looked into it. And I'm not just singling out BOTW for this. Even if we ignore the countless stories of people coming out and saying that businesses like IGN have pressured them to give higher scores, critic reviews feel incredibly shallow, dishonest, and completely rushed in order to have it out by Day #1.

Hell, Jim's score was a positive one, but the reason people are freaking out is because critic scores have gotten so ridiculously inflated that anything below an 8 is now considered "trash". A 5 should be decent, but we've gotten to the point where I'd say "decent" falls somewhere between 8.5-9.0. And if a game has a metacritic score lower than 8 (Sticker Star: 7.5) then watch out...

 

[Jirohnagi]

In some ways it's an excellent foundation, the size of the world and the detail put into it is excellent and despite some misgivings i have even the enemy placement is smart it's rare that you'll find a lynel near a talus or hinox, the art direction of the game was damned good too, i personally love just watching the sky ontop of the gerudo highlands or on the plateau, why? because my god is it nice to actually see a good star sphere. WW had a good one as well in my books.

The level of collectibles i did like for the most part but they did go overboard by alot with koroks which isn't great but hey hey had to fill the world with something.......right?

In other ways it was really bad there was virtually no plot and only existed through sporadic moments that relied on you slaying the 4 bosses of the beasts or finding photos.

The Divine beast dungeons were lackluster, i like the idea behind them and in some (naboris, ruta) The method of progression was damned cool and rather clever, requiring some common sense and skill, but the designs in the dungeons bored me to tears personally, other dungeons were just lame as hell requiring you to shift the entire beast to go through the place.
in terms of world building the game well and truly failed at building a populace or even any threat to them, aside from the odd traveller the people are literally going around with no fear of the giant mutant purple cloud surrounding the throne of the kingdom, the town folk feel generic and just stock models, and the towns themselves.......for such a large world often feel small. The only place i felt that was really unique and breath taking was zora's domain aside from that i just lost interest in the towns and hated revisting.. For comparison i still frequently visit zoras domain and i've only been to rito town just enough to finish the shrines in the area and that's it.

The variety of enemies in the game are uninteresting and repetitive, the only variation is in strength, gear,color and health, no special skills or abilities nothing to really set them apart and make em memorable, they are just as easy to kill at their strongest as they are at their weakest. personally i'd rather see a weak ass moblin that can throw literal ice around than a golden moblin that just hits you with a club.

Finally quest rewards in the next game this massively needs to pick up, take a few notes from MM where any quest reward you got was actually useful to and not just a crappy medal sitting there doing nothing.

 

[Hyrulian Hero]

How was it a troll review? I didn't personally agree with it, I thought he was way too hung up over durability while letting significantly worse issues slide past, and I think Jim is an insufferable SJW, but it was one of the very few critic reviews that felt genuine. Like he actually took his time, played the game, and seriously looked into it. And I'm not just singling out BOTW for this. Even if we ignore the countless stories of people coming out and saying that businesses like IGN have pressured them to give higher scores, critic reviews feel incredibly shallow, dishonest, and completely rushed in order to have it out by Day #1.

Hell, Jim's score was a positive one, but the reason people are freaking out is because critic scores have gotten so ridiculously inflated that anything below an 8 is now considered "trash". A 5 should be decent, but we've gotten to the point where I'd say "decent" falls somewhere between 8.5-9.0. And if a game has a metacritic score lower than 8 (Sticker Star: 7.5) then watch out...

People having opinions that differ from yours does not constitute them "freaking out". In fact, nobody I know of is freaking or outing about a video game rating that is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. Even when his review was current, I don't see how calling a spade a spade wad unwarranted. Jim Sterling has a long and storied record of video game reviews that are a far cry from matching up with other reviewers. Before you go taking that out of context, his reviews don't have to match up with anybody else's as they are his reviews, props to the man for avoiding shillhood. However, is gleeful hipster-ism regarding his inconsistently distal review scores tips him off to me as a troll.

There may have been a miscommunication as well since I didn't mean to let on that I somehow disagree with claims that people are pressured to give scores to certain games, likely since I never said anything even close to implying that. Sterling's apologists seem to have a bit of a straw man on their hands as they defend Sterling's low scores by saying that people who disagree with his reviews are merely fanboys who want everything to be graded like an academic test (ie. >90%=A, 80-90%=B, and 70-80%=Average). I for one believe that 50% ought to be average just as Jim Sterling appears to. So instead of conflating the two issues, let's separate my feelings on Jim Sterling's procedure and focus on Jim Sterling's rating of Breath of the Wild, as I was previously. The point is, breath of the Wild was not a seven out of ten game.

Sterling is absolutely allowed to have his opinion and the fact that he is allowed to voice his opinion as someone who purchased the game and was not given a review copy is evidence to me that the system is not completely broken. Sterling, however, is a seasoned and veteran video game reviewer. This is why I believe that Sterling's rating of the game was not an attempt at a middle biased review of the game but a direct overreaction to the universal acclaim that Breath of the Wild garnered. The review whiffs of review bombing behavior by which he feels that to counteract bought review scores, he has to throw his entire weight in the opposite direction in a search for some kind of balance. He didn't give the game a 0/10 score, he's not 12. He gave Breath of the Wild a lower score than it deserved. If you want to be technical about it, which may be the case by the sound of it, it's not trolling by definition but I'm sure there's no need to quibble over syntax.

Edit: And let me be clear about this, I absolutely am a Nintendo fanboy and would like to have seen Breath of the Wild get a #2 slot. I was definitely butt-hurt about the incongruous rating that Sterling gave the game. These absolute facts aside, I don't believe that it takes a fanboy to see that Sterling's opinion of the game was impacted by the meta-narrative of how great the game was and by the blatant shillery of some reviewers.

- Butt-Hurt Fanboy

 

[DarkestLink]

People having opinions that differ from yours does not constitute them "freaking out". In fact, nobody I know of is freaking or outing about a video game rating that is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

So if DDOSing him over it isn't "freaking out", then what is?

Even when his review was current, I don't see how calling a spade a spade wad unwarranted. Jim Sterling has a long and storied record of video game reviews that are a far cry from matching up with other reviewers.

Yeah, I know, that's how he got his fanbase despite constantly siding with people who are, essentially, "anti-gamer", and constantly being an insufferable ass on a personal level. Compared to other reviewers, he's generally seen as more honest and his reviews more closely match that of the users. I recall he was one of the few people who had the balls to give Star Fox Zero a negative review.

This is why I believe that Sterling's rating of the game was not an attempt at a middle biased review of the game but a direct overreaction to the universal acclaim that Breath of the Wild garnered.

A 7/10? Really? If that's what he was going for, why did he give the game such a glowing positive review? Why not call it a piece of **** and give it a 3/10 or something? There's plenty of justification to give BOTW a score lower than a 3 or lower, even if I don't personally agree with these arguments.

The review whiffs of review bombing behavior by which he feels that to counteract bought review scores, he has to throw his entire weight in the opposite direction in a search for some kind of balance. He didn't give the game a 0/10 score, he's not 12. He gave Breath of the Wild a lower score than it deserved. If you want to be technical about it, which may be the case by the sound of it, it's not trolling by definition but I'm sure there's no need to quibble over syntax.

OK let's pretend he gave it a lower score than it deserved. Why is this a problem and not that reviews that:

1) Gave it a much higher score than it deserved. i.e. the 10 reviews that ignore the massive flaws BOTW has?
2) Were hastily submitted despite the reviewer clearly not having time to complete the game?
3) Were written by parties whose careers are dependent on early copies and thus have a conflict of interest?

Again, I don't like Jim. At all. He's obnoxious, he's cowardly, he's a bully, and he's an SJW. I don't agree with a lot of his gaming viewpoints either. I didn't even agree with most of his BOTW review. Again, he glosses over too many issues while making durability out to be a bigger problem than it is. But at least it felt genuine and somewhat informative. Meanwhile the majority of mainstream reviews have become nothing more than a source of advertisement. They lack substance, there's a conflict of interest within the company, they're too fluffed up and waffle on about nothing, they're not informative, and many of the reviewers are simply not gamers. User Reviews still have trolls and fanboys, but critic reviews have become nothing more than a number to add onto the game's box cover or their next commercial.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

I think it has reset the bar for Zelda. I know some people feel like the series was better with a degree of linearity. I for one think the series needed to embrace the openworld concept, and that it wasn't such a drastic change. I've said this many times, after WW and TP it felt like the series should have naturally progressed towards an openworld since those game had pretty big overworlds.

There is alot that can be done going foward. I feel like BotW being only the first openworld zelda, the next installments should be able to improve.