I actually agree with a lot of what the article says, even though I don't find it to be especially well written.

That being said, this cannot end well.

It's overrated yet they gave it a 10/10.

k

Different authors.

I feel the exact same way. On both counts.

I don't know if I could survive a truly great Zelda game. BotW stole 170 hours of my life and I didn't even regret one minute of it. But sure, if you break it down like that and only look at the destination, ignoring the journey, then yes, there isn't anything truly special or unique to discover. However BotW is about the hero's path, ie your path through the game. BotW is exploration/experimentation at its finest. If all you care about is discovery you might get disappointed.

Yet it is still hands down the best game released in over a decade. Haters gonna hate!

Wait, Rol, do you actually agree with this, or are you just making a statement on the moderation standards of VGChartz?

Breath of the Wild is the best imperfect game I ever played. There is a lot that can be improved but the game is so amazing I always overlook them. Also of course Breath of the Wild seems bare bones in some parts. The game literally broke every part of the Zelda formula so they can rebuild it into something better.

Also really lack of story and lack of NPCs is a bad thing now? I actually thought the previous games had too much story if anything. This article is dumb.

"The game is all about running around aimlessly with nothing unique to discover, no area-specific secret bosses, and overall very little progression "

This is like the most generic and most boring way to describe Breath of the Wild. It is like I describe Mario Galaxy ""It is a game where all you do is jump around and follow a predetermined path. "

"I don't understand why people complain about sailing in Wind Waker but suddenly love running around grassy plains and climbing rocks that take five times as long as sailing between islands did."

Wind Waker was boring when it came to exploration because it served NO purpose. In Breath of the Wild you want to get everything because it will help you in the future. So exploring was awesome. In Wind Waker you don't get anything really exciting unless it is a story purpose island. Also Wind Waker was so easy the challenge was if you could die at all. So getting something that could make you stronger was pointless.

This article deserves to be deleted. I only briefly touched on some parts and I pretty much disagree for most of it. If I went into detail my rebuttal would be longer than the article!

inb4 people who never actually played BOTW use this as ammo.

This article is surprisingly badly written when you consider it's not even that hard to criticize Breath of the Wild. A lot of what he says is just stupid or wrong.

"If Breath of the Wild is your personal favorite game or favorite Zelda game, I'm not speaking to you. It's the people foaming at the mouth at how it's objectively better than other games"

Even though I've heard people use objectively in the gaming community, I don't see "objectivity" referred to as much as it is in music or film communities. This is most likely because the open-ended nature of video games, which we all experience somewhat similarly but somewhat differently, allows us to form our own opinions. Games require that the player input certain functions and variables to complete the game, and since it takes a relationship with the product to complete a game it's arguably the most subjective art form there is. I don't see a lot of people saying Breath of the Wild is objectively the best game ever, or that it's the best Zelda game objectively, I just see a lot of people posting opinions without saying "in my opinion". Which, you shouldn't have to say because if you're posting it, it's obviously your opinion? If your entire metric for Breath of the Wild is that it's overrated because critics have called it one of the best games ever, then this is true for literally every video game that's gotten scores similar to Breath of the Wild, because there is no objective merit, just opinions. ESPECIALLY the Zelda community understands subjectivity, ranking lists from Zelda fans encompass every part of the rainbow.

"The core concept of "everything happened a long time ago this is just ruins" is a cliche that is rarely interesting (exceptions are Fallout and BioShock)."

Ironic.

"There is no developing plot within the areas you visit"

Technically not true but ok.

"Even beginners are able to dispatch Guardians in the Major Tests of Strength, while sponges are the worst way to create difficulty and "progression.""

This reads terribly, probably wrote it backwards.

"While four orbs are virtually the same as four heart pieces "

Lol can you imagine if this was true?

" That includes rendering horses completely useless and further discouraging you from opening a menu, carefully selecting which shield you want to break, and surfing rather than just jumping and pressing A. This actually weakens the sense of exploration. You never have to find ways to access something; it's either jump and glide or climb. "

Can't say I agree and I feel like this is really not representative of the surfing. You surf in areas where the terrain is curved down or flat and gliding isn't the best option. You mainly surf in areas with sand or snow. There were mainly times in the game where I felt surfing was the option to go with and not gliding. You have to be on a high area to glide, you don't with surfing.

I can't believe he brought up "brevity is the soul of wit" when the article is badly written and full of snarky comments, and "haha" references that just waist time.

I can't argue with a lot of his logic, he is spot on and it's why I put 85+ hours in the game and am currently struggling to turn on my Switch and finish it. I don't want to go to Death Mountain and finish the game, I'm bored of it. He definitely had a lot of good points. I would say "where were these critics when Skyrim/Fallout 3/Oblivion came out?" but it seems like even major websites are starting to change and become more critical. Plus individual writers have different philosophies and his rant on the Open world concept being too easy to conflate with inherently good was a great part of the article. It's just too bad that games like Breath of the Wild and Fallout 4 have to be the ones kicked in the butt, when Fallout 3 and Skyrim and many other open world games led up to this point. Maybe people were just really oblivious in the 7th gen.

The biggest problem I had with this article though is that he needlessly comments on objectivity and subjectivity while stating opinions over and over again that are subjective. He tried to make this into an objective "Breath of the Wild isn't THAT GOOD" article but even with all these critiques he's ignoring that A) some of these are still opinions and B ) the personal journey someone takes is more important than what you write on a computer screen. Being "objective" is a trap a writer should never fall under in the first place.