Quantcast
Aonuma feels that Breath of the Wild’s freedom needs to be maintained in future Zelda games

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Aonuma feels that Breath of the Wild’s freedom needs to be maintained in future Zelda games

Miyamotoo said:
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Sad news. Open world is a fad I really hope games stop forcing in. Very few do it well.

And Zelda BotW is one that do it probably best until now.

People keep saying that, but I don't agree. They tried harder than most, for sure, and they put much more work in and it shows. I still don't think it's done well, especially not given the franchise it's attached to. Very disappointing.



I am currently sigless.

Around the Network
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Miyamotoo said:

And Zelda BotW is one that do it probably best until now.

People keep saying that, but I don't agree. They tried harder than most, for sure, and they put much more work in and it shows. I still don't think it's done well, especially not given the franchise it's attached to. Very disappointing.

Well critics and gaming media dont agree with you, Zelda BotW is one of most critically acclaimed games ever.



Miyamotoo said:
Majin-Tenshinhan said:

People keep saying that, but I don't agree. They tried harder than most, for sure, and they put much more work in and it shows. I still don't think it's done well, especially not given the franchise it's attached to. Very disappointing.

Well critics and gaming media dont agree with you, Zelda BotW is one of most critically acclaimed games ever.

Oh, thanks for opening my eyes, I better fall in line then, huh?

I know it's been critically well-received, I never said they shouldn't do it. I said it saddens me greatly to see it. Stop trying to force your opinions on others via some sort of mob rule.



I am currently sigless.

The bottom line is that Breath of the Wild is the first game in the Zelda series to really elevate it as a franchise since Ocarina of Time. It's the first time since that game that I got that feeling I had when I played the original game on NES, and even Zelda 2 (despite many people hating it, I found it sufficiently different and interesting in many different ways, it was one of the games that got me started on my favourite genre, RPGs), then Link to the Past back in the SNES era, and when I played Ocarina of Time on the N64.

The big problem I had with the franchise is, while games like Link's Awakening and Majora's Mask were interesting for what they were - they didn't really progress the franchise. Legend of Zelda, Link to the Past, and Ocarina of Time all did something to elevate the franchise to the next level. Then the franchise spent nearly two decades wallowing in derivatives until Breath of the Wild. You could say "Well... well... Wind Waker had all that water to sail on" but all that really did was replace Hyrule field as the obstacle course between the dungeons filled with slow puzzles; the games were all basically derivatives of what Ocarina of Time had already done a lot better years earlier.

Breath of the Wild finally broke that cycle of stagnant releases by doing something new and wonderful. it elevated the franchise to the next level they were seeking for nearly 20 years - and it is the most successful game in the franchise critically and commercially.


*For people who are going to press the argument of the meta score of Breath of the Wild being slightly lower than Ocarina of Time - keep in mind that the volume and total percentage of 100%s are substantially higher for Breath of the Wild. Reviews like Jimquisition "I'm giving it a low score because I'm angry at Nintendo" reviews are counted, but shouldn't be if you are looking for an accurate representation. Basically, if you cut off the top and bottom 10% of reviews, you'll get something more reliable - and Breath of the Wild is higher than Ocarina of Time in this case. In statistics, a textbook example is this: in a kitchen if taking the temperature of a room by measuring of 20 objects, and 19 of them are 18-20 degrees, but the oven is 200 degrees, then the average temperature of the room would rise to over 28 degrees with all things accounted for, which would be highly misleading. Cutting off top 10% and bottom 10% would give a much more accurate temperature of the room, and it would end up somewhere around 19 degrees instead of 28 degrees. Basically, if you agree with the outlier reviews, you're not agreeing that the average anyway - rather, you're in the oven, and not where the majority of people would stand.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:

The bottom line is that Breath of the Wild is the first game in the Zelda series to really elevate it as a franchise since Ocarina of Time. It's the first time since that game that I got that feeling I had when I played the original game on NES, and even Zelda 2 (despite many people hating it, I found it sufficiently different and interesting in many different ways, it was one of the games that got me started on my favourite genre, RPGs), then Link to the Past back in the SNES era, and when I played Ocarina of Time on the N64.

The big problem I had with the franchise is, while games like Link's Awakening and Majora's Mask were interesting for what they were - they didn't really progress the franchise. Legend of Zelda, Link to the Past, and Ocarina of Time all did something to elevate the franchise to the next level. Then the franchise spent nearly two decades wallowing in derivatives until Breath of the Wild. You could say "Well... well... Wind Waker had all that water to sail on" but all that really did was replace Hyrule field as the obstacle course between the dungeons filled with slow puzzles; the games were all basically derivatives of what Ocarina of Time had already done a lot better years earlier.

Breath of the Wild finally broke that cycle of stagnant releases by doing something new and wonderful. it elevated the franchise to the next level they were seeking for nearly 20 years - and it is the most successful game in the franchise critically and commercially.


*For people who are going to press the argument of the meta score of Breath of the Wild being slightly lower than Ocarina of Time - keep in mind that the volume and total percentage of 100%s are substantially higher for Breath of the Wild. Reviews like Jimquisition "I'm giving it a low score because I'm angry at Nintendo" reviews are counted, but shouldn't be if you are looking for an accurate representation. Basically, if you cut off the top and bottom 10% of reviews, you'll get something more reliable - and Breath of the Wild is higher than Ocarina of Time in this case. In statistics, a textbook example is this: in a kitchen if taking the temperature of a room by measuring of 20 objects, and 19 of them are 18-20 degrees, but the oven is 200 degrees, then the average temperature of the room would rise to over 28 degrees with all things accounted for, which would be highly misleading. Cutting off top 10% and bottom 10% would give a much more accurate temperature of the room, and it would end up somewhere around 19 degrees instead of 28 degrees. Basically, if you agree with the outlier reviews, you're not agreeing that the average anyway - rather, you're in the oven, and not where the majority of people would stand.

You feeling that way is absolutely fine, but saying that every game did what Ocarina of Time had already done better is highly subjective. I love the Zelda formula (that BotW deviates from), but I wouldn't even put Ocarina of Time in my top 5. Obviously, OoT is the most famous and generally well-respected Zelda game of before, but a lot of people didn't feel like the series was stagnant at all, as evidenced by for example Twilight Princess outselling Ocarina of Time's total on the N64 at release.

BotW doing something new is absolutely true, and not something I'd ever argue against, but your phrasing your subjective opinions about the series status as something objective. Even though you keep pointing out what you feel, problems you had etc., you also use definitive phrasing about the bottom line being and that Ocarina of Time did things better than later entries.



I am currently sigless.

Around the Network
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Miyamotoo said:

Well critics and gaming media dont agree with you, Zelda BotW is one of most critically acclaimed games ever.

Oh, thanks for opening my eyes, I better fall in line then, huh?

I know it's been critically well-received, I never said they shouldn't do it. I said it saddens me greatly to see it. Stop trying to force your opinions on others via some sort of mob rule.

I don't force anything, I just bringing facts, and no game is not critically well-received, we talking about one of best critically games ever, and it's totally OK if you dont like game, but you need to be aware of that fact.



Miyamotoo said:
Majin-Tenshinhan said:

Oh, thanks for opening my eyes, I better fall in line then, huh?

I know it's been critically well-received, I never said they shouldn't do it. I said it saddens me greatly to see it. Stop trying to force your opinions on others via some sort of mob rule.

I don't force anything, I just bringing facts, and no game is not critically well-received, we talking about one of best critically games ever, and it's totally OK if you dont like game, but you need to be aware of that fact.

Why in god's name would you assume I'm not aware of it being well-received, when I even said so myself? I blatantly said that I personally don't like it, and I'm sad my favourite franchise is going in this direction. There's zero room to infer that I'm not aware of its reception.

Even if we somehow assume I wasn't, what's your post supposed to prove, exactly? You're saying it as if my opinion should be swayed because the game has been well-received, and then turning around and saying it's OK for me to not like the game. Your responses aren't making sense. I recommend reading posts before you respond to them.



I am currently sigless.

Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Miyamotoo said:

I don't force anything, I just bringing facts, and no game is not critically well-received, we talking about one of best critically games ever, and it's totally OK if you dont like game, but you need to be aware of that fact.

Why in god's name would you assume I'm not aware of it being well-received, when I even said so myself? I blatantly said that I personally don't like it, and I'm sad my favourite franchise is going in this direction. There's zero room to infer that I'm not aware of its reception.

Even if we somehow assume I wasn't, what's your post supposed to prove, exactly? You're saying it as if my opinion should be swayed because the game has been well-received, and then turning around and saying it's OK for me to not like the game. Your responses aren't making sense. I recommend reading posts before you respond to them.

Well game is not critically just well-received, we talking about one of best critically acclaimed games ever (there is obvious difference between well-received and one of best critically acclaimed games ever), and it seems you are not aware of that fact, regardless your personal opinion about game, thats my point.



Miyamotoo said:
Majin-Tenshinhan said:

Why in god's name would you assume I'm not aware of it being well-received, when I even said so myself? I blatantly said that I personally don't like it, and I'm sad my favourite franchise is going in this direction. There's zero room to infer that I'm not aware of its reception.

Even if we somehow assume I wasn't, what's your post supposed to prove, exactly? You're saying it as if my opinion should be swayed because the game has been well-received, and then turning around and saying it's OK for me to not like the game. Your responses aren't making sense. I recommend reading posts before you respond to them.

Well game is not critically just well-received, we talking about one of best critically acclaimed games ever (there is obvious difference between well-received and one of best critically acclaimed games ever), and it seems you are not aware of that fact, regardless your personal opinion about game, thats my point.

There's no difference, because my opinion differs from them. I'm not going to change my opinion based on what critics say, and I never will. Either I liked it or I didn't. Their opinions are irrelevant, even if they can be a decent enough gauge before purchasing a game from time to time. It getting 70, 80 or 100 on metacritic is entirely irrelevant.

You're hung up on semantics for some reason, because the core here, which I've already told you several times, is that I didn't like the game. Repeatedly telling me it got great reviews, something anyone who's paid attention for the last 9 months obviously knows, does nothing. Stop trying to prove yourself right by some arbitrary fashion. I'm not going to start liking the game because critics, and many consumers of course, do.



I am currently sigless.

curl-6 said:

I hope they keep weapon durability, it kept things fresh and interesting by not allowing me to lean too heavily on one weapon and constantly changing up my arsenal. 

About the only things I'd like to see change is make the major dungeons thematically distinct instead of all the same rusty beige aesthetic, give them more interesting bosses, and increase general enemy variety. (Not that the game was poor in the latter regard, just that there is room for improvement)

I agree. I would love to see that forest, fire, desert, water like temples. Also about 4 more towns.