So, was 3D World better than Odyssey? S-P-O-I-L-E-R-S

[Jumpin]

GameOverture said:

Jumpin said:

The topic deals with people complaining that there is too much content.

It's not padding because the game wasn't designed so you must complete every Shrine, get every Korok seed, and collect every little item in the game. The game was designed to be vast and astonishing open world, the content balanced across it so players could travel with freedom around the world with many different viable paths with the required resources and content. Shrinking the scope of the game would lessen what makes the game great. It would be dumb to limit the game's potential to cater toward the fact that there are going to be some completionists; and among them a subsection of whiny, lazy completionists.

If you're going to be a whiny lazy completionist, Breath of the Wild isn't the game for you. It'll be too big.

I understand what you're saying but there's no reason some of that content couldn't be something else if they really wanted there to be 120 shrines. I didn't complete the game BotW 100%, but I was sick of Test of Strength shrines with little to no variation. Judging by what I've seen on the internet, so was everybody else. I get that you think you're not supposed find all of them (which I find weird in a game that's about exploring the open world looking for shrines, but whatever), but imagine a scenario where you play about 60 shrines before being done with the game and about 15 of them are tests of strength, that makes the game look pretty bad. Sure, you may call it bad luck, but if the game was designed in with less shrines like those, the chances of that happening would be lower. Good game design needs to take these things into account. 

Btw, just to be clear, BotW was my GotY for 2017, so don't mistake me criticizing the game as me hating on it. It's probably my favorite Zelda, but I think it has clear room for improvement.

Also, I don't get how being a completionist is being lazy, or whiny for that matter, it's just a different playstyle.

On the first bit: you claim there's no reason not to have more diversity - there is a reason, it's called production scope. You can argue all you want about wanting more variety, from every mini-boss monster being unique down to every enemy in the game being unique, every tree being unique - and the reason why it isn't is always the same: production scope. That's a different topic, Breath of the Wild was already a massive undertaking, upping the development time in order to make it more massive/diverse/whatever is another topic. My argument isn't about production at all, it's about people whining that the game has too much content.

If you find it weird that Breath of the Wild doesn't require find all the content, then that's on you. Most people don't have that issue, and you're the first person I have heard say it. Again, a different argument. If you're a player that finds the tests of strength intolerable to play, you can skip them, you do not have to finish every single Shrine you come across, there are LOTS of other options.

 

Onto your main argument

You argue that the best way to deal with the hypothetical consideration that players might go for 60 Shrines, and might find 15 tests of strength among them, and then among those players, they might find that it makes the game look bad. As a result, you argue that good design would suggest that developers remove X amount of Shrines. 

This is where I disagree with you. First, removing Shrines would break the balance of the game: the world would be emptier. For consistency's sake, you would similarly have to make the same argument that there are too many stables around the world, or that there are too many Korok seeds. The reason they do this is a game balance for the scope of the world. I have already addressed this point in previous posts: cutting down on the content of the game breaks the balance. Cutting down on the size of the world to maintain balance dulls/shrinks one of the major hooks/appeals that made the game as successful as it has been; sacrificing that to appease a small sliver of nitpickers is an example of a BAD design choice (as I have already stated in my above post).

 

"Also, I don't get how being a completionist is being lazy, or whiny for that matter, it's just a different playstyle."
I didn't argue that.