Quantcast
Statement: Last of Us and Breath of the Wild embody the difference between PS and Nintendo

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Statement: Last of Us and Breath of the Wild embody the difference between PS and Nintendo

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

BOTW's story isn't bad though. It's simply a secondary or even tertiary aspect and as such fairly basic.

TLOU has light problem solving like finding a box to push against a wall to climb it, or finding a raft to push Ellie across a body of water so she can reach a wheel to turn. Like BOTW's story, it was really basic stuff, but that didn't matter so much as it was not a core focus of the game.

picking a raft to get over a river isn't a puzzle.

I said problem solving.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

picking a raft to get over a river isn't a puzzle.

I said problem solving.

But before you were saying TLOU doesn't lose points for not having strong puzzle (which it never proposed to have), is this made to be a type of goalpost shifting?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

CaptainExplosion said:
Kerotan said:

You just described the last of us. 

But on a grander scale. Ellie never had to deal with a shadowy hellspawn pig thing and his fleet of ancient robots.

Sounds pretty generic to me. I hope you see the point in making here



DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

I said problem solving.

But before you were saying TLOU doesn't lose points for not having strong puzzle (which it never proposed to have), is this made to be a type of goalpost shifting?

No goalpost shifting at all. I said:  "TLOU for example doesn't lose points for not having challenging and clever problem solving/puzzles"

It has no puzzles per se at all, and what problem solving it has it basic to the point of basically just being filler. But it doesn't lose points for it cos that's not what it's all about. On the other hand, had BOTW had weak problem solving in its shrines, which are one of its core components, it would have lost points.

So there is no scoring bias in favour of BOTW. It's simply that games are assessed foremost on their primary components, not their tertiary ones.



curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

But before you were saying TLOU doesn't lose points for not having strong puzzle (which it never proposed to have), is this made to be a type of goalpost shifting?

No goalpost shifting at all. I said:  "TLOU for example doesn't lose points for not having challenging and clever problem solving/puzzles"

It has no puzzles per se at all, and what problem solving it has it basic to the point of basically just being filler. But it doesn't lose points for it cos that's not what it's all about. On the other hand, had BOTW had weak problem solving in its shrines, which are one of its core components, it would have lost points.

So there is no scoring bias in favour of BOTW. It's simply that games are assessed foremost on their primary components, not their tertiary ones.

I didn't say it was due to scoring bias, I said that it didn't lost points due to it. And shoehorning "problem solving" as one key element that should be evaluated but wasn't because it wasn't strong or core, when it wasn't even part of the game at all not even as filler. The type of "problem solving" you have in TLOU is how to stay alive and find the best route and strategy to cross an area. Getting Ellie from A to B in some of the non-combat sections isn't a problem solving as it comes very naturally, is just one travessing mechanic that was used very lightly.

The quality of the story in Zelda and problem solving/puzzle in TLOU aren't anywhere near similar points to consider as one not being good (per admission of some and you not really contesting it, just said isn't that bad) but present through the game is much more relevant than a game not doing what it doesn't try to do at all. Next will you say TLOU doesn't lose points for not having strong platforming elements even though you use latters?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

No goalpost shifting at all. I said:  "TLOU for example doesn't lose points for not having challenging and clever problem solving/puzzles"

It has no puzzles per se at all, and what problem solving it has it basic to the point of basically just being filler. But it doesn't lose points for it cos that's not what it's all about. On the other hand, had BOTW had weak problem solving in its shrines, which are one of its core components, it would have lost points.

So there is no scoring bias in favour of BOTW. It's simply that games are assessed foremost on their primary components, not their tertiary ones.

I didn't say it was due to scoring bias, I said that it didn't lost points due to it. And shoehorning "problem solving" as one key element that should be evaluated but wasn't because it wasn't strong or core, when it wasn't even part of the game at all not even as filler. The type of "problem solving" you have in TLOU is how to stay alive and find the best route and strategy to cross an area. Getting Ellie from A to B in some of the non-combat sections isn't a problem solving as it comes very naturally, is just one travessing mechanic that was used very lightly.

The quality of the story in Zelda and problem solving/puzzle in TLOU aren't anywhere near similar points to consider as one not being good (per admission of some and you not really contesting it, just said isn't that bad) but present through the game is much more relevant than a game not doing what it doesn't try to do at all. Next will you say TLOU doesn't lose points for not having strong platforming elements even though you use latters?

They are similar points. Both are basic as a result of not being central components of the game and as such it makes no sense to grade the games based on these elements. It's as simple as that.