| Normchacho said: Let me split there back up. The other person I'm reponding to talked about Uncharted and you personally haven't called anyone biased or ignorant, but others in the thread have.
Let me go back through your last post more closely. "You're not getting the point, you're saying that it has less wildlife running around or what not but that is made up by the sheer number of activities you're doing, the game doesn't need what you're complaining about, those trees you're talking about for example all can be cut down for resources or picked for fruits that grow back, this is something other open world games that have what you say don't feature." The issue you bring up, and the one I'm talking about are two different things. Having one thing doesn't "make up" for missing another. Being able to pick fruit, and snowboard, and climb everything are all really cool features. But, their value to the game is different than the value provided by a lush, living world. The new Zelda game looks great, and does a lot of cool things that I haven't really seen done together before. But that doesn't really change the conversation at hand in any way. |
Well this makes more sense now, on what we're debating I disagree as it comes down to the overall execution of the game, cool features I mentioned make up for that short coming because the world is designed in such a way to encourage their use. A common problem with many open world games in general is that they have these lush envirionments but what you do in them is pretty uninteresting, after the novalty of looking at the nice landscape has passed the game starts to suffer.
The Zelda seems geared towards what you as the player can do to engage yourself while having a good artistic look for the world as opposed to being overly lush. You may not have thousands of NPCs running around but it's looking like you'd have a tonne of different things to do or play around with.
