![]() I want to see a surviving fort/dungeon, not the ruins of one you walk through instead of into. There's not enough enclosed areas in the open world that aren't in some nebulous other world. And the fact that most of the enclosed spaces in the games are shrines is the problem. ![]() 'Feels like a dev prototype' artificial, not 'made by people' artificial. Why are you playing an open world game that leans more into exploration over one that doesn't?Ĭlick to shrink.Room too big, not enough stuff in it. Like at some point, you literally type that you don't want to "open world your way out" of an open world game. So your complaint will change from "I ran and the enemy stopped following me" to "I ran and the enemy is still following me all the way to the other side of the map", which is less advanced AI. Every game is going to have a limit to how much an enemy can be aggro'd because the opposite is typically having the enemy follow you forever. Some of the other things you mentioned are antithetical to the freedom that a very open-world game like BOTW is. If anything, the big flaw is the fact that they make you have to pause the game to switch weapons, instead of quickly swapping through like other action games, but Zelda games have always had these niggles. I can't believe someone actually wants the opposite of this where you have a massive inventory filled with massive amounts of weapons that you won't use at all, just so you can collect them. If you have special weapons that don't break then there's no point to keep switching through weapons. It's why you can't even permanently use the master sword either. They're going to make you use them all so you can keep switching through them. Loot isn't supposed to be permanent in BOTW. You're also contradicting yourself, most of the enclosed areas in the game are shrines, they all feel different from the general over world. Shrines aren't too open, what does that even mean? Of course, they're artificial, they're lost civilization architecture, some of them spring up from underground. The Beast were obviously an attempt at doing that, but its hard to argue they succeeded at it. They were really cool in context, but there was a lack of large sprawling challenges that required more in depth though and effort. Hell, that is why I think the dungeon criticism holds up, because BotW did have them, they had the sacred beasts, but they were small, fairly simplistic, and honestly were just a slightly bigger shrine. Its fine to not like BotW, but if you are going to be critical of something in a way that moves beyond "its not the type of thing I enjoy" you better based the arguments on actual problems the game has in the context of what it is trying to be and what it is trying to do. ![]() Sure, its hard to impossible to really do that completely, but like, it doesn't seem like you are even trying to do that on any level.Īnd like, to be clear, its fine. Which is a fairly terrible thing to do when talking about the qualities of a game on its own. Honestly, this entire reply just reads as more of an appeal to emotion then anything. There is no game where if you do that won't end up having numerous 'problems'. That isn't judging it on the merits of what the game is, its you judging it against a hypothetical version of what the game could be in your head. Because you bought it only because its GoW despite everything else you knew. ![]() This is like looking at the new GoW games, learning everything about them, about how the game shifted from the mostly juvenile slaughter fest of the previous games to what it is now, and then getting upset that. Rather then looking at the game and looking at it for its own merits, you saw the name Zelda and basically ignored everything else you knew about it. despite the fact you even admit you looked at it and didn't really like the type of game you were seeing, just because its Zelda. Your point is literally just that you had expectations. Click to shrink.It really isn't though, is my point.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |