Breath of the Wild What would you do if this game came out and it completely SUCKED?

[el :BeoWolf:]

It's really bonkers how many Zelda games that aren't Zelda games do the Zelda game thing better than most Zelda games.

The first Tombraider (2013 reboot or whatever) was like this.

Batman Arkham City is literally a Zelda game if you swap Gotham City for Hyrule, Batman for Link and make him fight with his fists instead of a sword.

Nintendo, where the hell have you been???

Yeah and Fifa is pretty much Final Fantasy if you replace the players with cloud or someone, and instead of soccer they try to save the world

 

[Misty]

A disappointing Zelda game! Nothing will have prepared me for *looks at Skyward Sword* that....

 

[Kylo Ken]

I'll look into the camera and say, "I told you so."

:jimface:

 

[NintendoCN]

I would stick in the box of games ill never play along with the Zelda CDIs

 

[GameyGeemer]

While I am of the opinion that this is going to be the greatest thing since Wind Waker, offering a wild enough change in series trajectory that Nintendo seems to have steeled themselves towards making, and so far looking like it has been competently designed over the entire lifecycle of the Wii U, if Breath of the Wild does turn out bad I would probably only play it for 400 hours or so. Granted, I am looking to my play time of the Elder Scrolls games to come up with that figure since this is far closer in world design to that then it is to a traditional zelda game, but that is another one of those things I have wanted for a long while now.

 

[the8thark]

Let's make Zelda Great again.

Thanks Trump.

Seriously I think you're right. Nintendo need ot make Zelda great again. And I think they are doing just that. Not perfect but great enough to be a NX console seller.

 

[Lozjam]

Then it would just be another Skyward Sword, and Dark Souls 3 will remain the best Legend of Zelda game.

"When I was a student, The Legend of Zelda was truly monumental, so to be perfectly honest, I feel deeply unworthy of the comparison. The Legend of Zelda and Dark Souls are different games belonging to different genres though, and they’re guided by different concepts of game design. They don’t need to aspire to the same ideals. If there are similarities, they probably stem from the fact that The Legend of Zelda became a sort of textbook for 3D action games.”
-Miyazaki, the creator of the Dark Souls series.

I hope the game will be a fun experience with its open world. What I've seen so far doesn't look so exciting. Do you have to keep finding food to have strength to complete tasks?

No you do not. You can if you want to, but you do not have to.

Yeah and Fifa is pretty much Final Fantasy if you replace the players with cloud or someone, and instead of soccer they try to save the world

Oh wait...

A disappointing Zelda game! Nothing will have prepared me for *looks at Skyward Sword* that....

In all seriousness though, I think the series will still survive. Considering that the worst thing that EAD3 created thus far was a pretty good critically acclaimed game, the Zelda series will continue.

 

[Adventurer of Hyrule]

Thanks Trump.

Seriously I think you're right. Nintendo need ot make Zelda great again. And I think they are doing just that. Not perfect but great enough to be a NX console seller.

I feel that quote is misplaced, Zelda is pretty fantastic right now. The 3d entries are masterpieces, and AlbW is undoubtedly the best top down zelda game. I have been playing Zelda since i was a kid with a game boy skipping homework, and i cant help but to appreciate the most recent entries and its many, many improvements. As a fan i feel truly privileged.

 

[Chill Fruit]

Nothing.

Either it'll suck and I'll not have bought the game since I don't have either a Wii U or a NX so I can just go "Ehh", or I'll have bought the game and I'll just play it through because that's expensive.

In the end there's no point in crying over what can happen, all I can say is that I think Nintendo will at least try, and trying goes a long way towards getting it right.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

"When I was a student, The Legend of Zelda was truly monumental, so to be perfectly honest, I feel deeply unworthy of the comparison. The Legend of Zelda and Dark Souls are different games belonging to different genres though, and they’re guided by different concepts of game design. They don’t need to aspire to the same ideals. If there are similarities, they probably stem from the fact that The Legend of Zelda became a sort of textbook for 3D action games.”
-Miyazaki, the creator of the Dark Souls series.

Nice quote, but it doesn't stop Dark Souls 3 from being the best Legend of Zelda game. Zelda hasn't been spectacular these past few years, and Dark Souls emulates the gameplay, progression, and boss battles perfectly. If anything, Zelda could learn from Dark Souls' difficulty slant and caution-based battles.

 

[Lozjam]

Nice quote, but it doesn't stop Dark Souls 3 from being the best Legend of Zelda game. Zelda hasn't been spectacular these past few years, and Dark Souls emulates the gameplay, progression, and boss battles perfectly. If anything, Zelda could learn from Dark Souls' difficulty slant and caution-based battles.

Dark Souls is different from Zelda, in philosophy and design.

It is your own tastes that makes you like Dark Souls over Zelda as of late. It is not an end all be all "Dark Souls is better than Zelda", because, as Miyazaki said, they both cater to two different audiences and 2 different philosophies in design.

Dark Souls doesn't have the charm, the inuitive level design, the quality of puzzles, the focus on amazing items, the character designs, nor amazing music that the Zelda series has.

Zelda doesn't have the difficulty, the danger of enemies, the traps that make you plan your movement, the engaging and deep combat, and high skill ceiling that Dark Souls has.

That's okay for both of these games, as they set out to accomplish two different things and reach different audiences.

Zelda should never have the difficulty of Dark Souls, because it is extremely unintuitive whilst paired with the focus on puzzles and exploration. Dark Souls should never have the progression of a Zelda game, and shouldn't have the focus on puzzles and exploration, because it focuses on combat.

If you prefer Dark Souls over Zelda, that's fine. Dark Souls is more catered to you. But you cannot compare two different series that cater to two different philosophies. It's like saying the Xenoblade Chronicles is a better Skyrim. They are both RPGs that focus a lot on huge big worlds, with excellent world building. But they both cater to completely different audiences, and are way to different to be compared to.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Dark Souls is different from Zelda, in philosophy and design.

It is your own tastes that makes you like Dark Souls over Zelda as of late. It is not an end all be all "Dark Souls is better than Zelda", because, as Miyazaki said, they both cater to two different audiences and 2 different philosophies in design.

Dark Souls doesn't have the charm, the inuitive level design, the quality of puzzles, the focus on amazing items, the character designs, nor amazing music that the Zelda series has.

Zelda doesn't have the difficulty, the danger of enemies, the traps that make you plan your movement, the engaging and deep combat, and high skill ceiling that Dark Souls has.

That's okay for both of these games, as they set out to accomplish two different things and reach different audiences.

Zelda should never have the difficulty of Dark Souls, because it is extremely unintuitive whilst paired with the focus on puzzles and exploration. Dark Souls should never have the progression of a Zelda game, and shouldn't have the focus on puzzles and exploration, because it focuses on combat.

If you prefer Dark Souls over Zelda, that's fine. Dark Souls is more catered to you. But you cannot compare two different series that cater to two different philosophies. It's like saying the Xenoblade Chronicles is a better Skyrim. They are both RPGs that focus a lot on huge big worlds, with excellent world building. But they both cater to completely different audiences, and are way to different to be compared to.

I'd argue that Dark Souls features far more intuitive level design than Legend of Zelda. Dark Souls is about levels stacked upon one another, about opening shortcuts and thinking outside the box. It features natural progression, moving from one area to another, using one section of a level to unlock another level. Every Dark Souls game features a large interconnected world. If you can see it, odds are high you'll be going there, and low that you'll encounter a loading screen. Plenty of branching paths that encourage backtracking and thorough exploration. It rewards exploration with more than just an extension of your health bar.

Heck, Zelda can't even say it has spectacular boss battles anymore. While they can be big and flashy, they're never a challenge. I'm not saying they need to devastate to the extent that the average Dark Souls boss does, but they pose no challenge whatsoever. They're not a test of skill or ingenuity, they're just easy to solve puzzles. Not even the final bosses of the past few Zelda have presented anything close to a challenge. There needs to be a happy medium, a difficulty closer to that of Dark Souls, but not quite. Maybe the bosses don't send you into a controller-clenching fury, but they should pose a threat.

If I could sacrifice Zelda's puzzles (keeping the dungeons, mind you) for more challenging gameplay and a renewed sense of exploration and discovery unhindered by lacking the item of the day, I would do so in a heartbeat.

 

[Alshain]

Depends on what you mean by 'completely sucked'. I find even the worst TLOZ games to be quite enjoyable. Even Phantom Hourglass was fun, just not as good as it could have been.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

I wouldn't be surprised at all. Skyward Sword was definitely the "3D Zelda is mortal" wake-up call, and a further post-Gamecube decline wouldn't be the most shocking thing in the world with how 3D Zelda has slowly been heading downhill over the past decade (although that's what happens when you have one original installment over a 10 year span, something that's really baffling when you think about it).

I'm optimistic though because it really looks like Nintendo learned from the hot garbage that was SS. They're ditching just about every worn-out formula that game beat us over the head with, and I couldn't be happier.

 

[Mike Riendeau]

I think no matter what this game will be a disappointment, and bear with me. Everyone in this community, and even people not in it overhyped this game. Not saying necessarily it will be bad, I think it can be fantastic, just not the best thing to happen to gaming like some are saying. If the game truly is bad, I'll feel disappointment, and betrayal, but I hugely doubt it will be bad.