Review cover The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Nintendo Switch)
Official GBAtemp Review

Product Information:

  • Release Date (NA): March 3, 2017
  • Publisher: Nintendo
  • Developer: Nintendo
  • Genres: Action, Adventure, Open-world
  • Also For: Nintendo Wii U

Game Features:

Single player
Local Multiplayer
Online Multiplayer
Co-operative
Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is Nintendo’s latest entry in the ever-popular Zelda series. Featuring massive changes from the normal Zelda formula, Breath of the Wild is considered the “rebirth of a series”. But does it live up to the hype?

 attachFull80614

Breath of the Wild: The Real, Un-paid Review

Nintendo’s Legend of Zelda series used to follow a pretty well-received formula. You’re the hero, you must save a princess, and that involves going through an average of around 8 different dungeons collecting various tools that are required to explore the whole world and reach your damsel in distress Princess Zelda. Breath of the Wild, on the other hand, basically abandons that formula. This particular Zelda game puts you in the role of Link in the vast open world that is now Hyrule. Taking place 100 years after “Calamity Ganon” has mostly destroyed Hyrule and has taken over Hyrule Castle (where Zelda keeps him “captive” apparently), our hero must explore the world to recover 4 big mechs Divine Beasts, his memories, and of course the Master Sword, so he can defeat Ganon and the world of Hyrule can return to its normal peaceful self. Sounds pretty similar to normal Zelda games, but is it?

 attachFull80615

The main gameplay of Zelda is pretty simple. The first “new” thing you get is the Sheikah Slate, AKA a tablet, that has 6 different runes, AKA apps, that have different functions that can be used around the world. There's a magnet app that lets you move metal objects, round and square remote bomb apps that gives you bombs (yay, infinite bombs!), a Cryo app that creates a block of ice on water, the stasis app that freezes time for an item/enemy that you can hit to build up a sort of “kinetic charge”, and of course the extremely important camera app (because really, what tablet in 2017 doesn't have a camera amirite?). Link uses these various apps to complete puzzles and such around the world in Hyrule, most of which occurs in shrines. The Sheikah Slate also acts as your world map, your “key” to activate towers and shrines, a shrine/item tracker, your fast travel device and as the “Hyrule Compendium” which is basically a monster/item guide which is pretty handy when you're trying to find ingredients for food or elixirs that you can cook up in cooking pots around the world. You can also “Shield surf” down hills (which is useless, thanks to the paraglider and shit durability that I'll focus on later) as well as a Matrix-esque bow shot that you can perform mid-air. But honestly, I've never used either of these things at all when I played. Shield surfing is useless, because the paraglider is much quicker and doesn't break, and the Matrix bow shot is pretty useless in most places when it requires you to be floating/falling from a rather high height to perform.  The game also introduces actual armor pieces you can mix and match, instead of just 2 or 3 armor sets that are used in one or two places. Most pieces of clothing includes some sort of buff, like the ability to withstand hot/cold climates, providing resistance to guardian weapons, giving you attack/skill bonuses or giving you increased mobility in snowy/sandy areas. This is one of the better additions to the game, because it gives you more of a chance to customize Link and play/display him as you'd like (you can even cross-dress, which is required for one of the main quests ;) )

 attachFull80617

Combat has returned to a more simple style, but is unfortunately one of the few things Nintendo kind of goofed on. The biggest problem, not counting weapon durability (which I'll talk about next), is that every enemy can easily one-shot Link in pretty much 3/4ths of the game. I see a lot of people trying to compare this game to Souls games, and I (being a huge Souls fan myself) find the artificial difficulty Nintendo applied to BOTW to be infinitely worse than any Souls game I've played before. In Souls games, enemies are more “fair” when it comes to combat. 99% of the time, unless you're extremely unprepared or underleveled for an area, you're never going to find normal enemies that can one-shot you, or will instantly break all of your weapons and then kill you in seconds. In Breath of the Wild, virtually everything will just straight up kill you if you don't manage to kill it first. Basic enemies like Bokoblin's or Lizalfos will kill Link in 1-2 hits regardless of your armor rating. Big roaming Guardian's, which are present in most of the world of Hyrule, will insta-break your shield if you try to block their lasers and have 1500-3000 health (depending on if it's stationary or mobile). Their lasers will one-shot anyone who doesn't have at least 10+ hearts (and even sometimes then you'll get killed), and are nearly impossible to kill early game. The most interesting thing, though, is I've found main dungeon bosses don't do nearly as much damage as some of the normal enemies do which is simply insane. You'll also receive 4 new “powers” with the four Divine Beast dungeons you complete; a sort of “super fairy” type powerup where you'll be healed and given extra hearts when you die, a shield powerup that lets you block any attack 3 times, a charge attack powerup that launches a massive lightning attack to nearby enemies, and a charge jump that produces a big gust of wind that you can use to float/glide over enemies/obstacles. Once used, each powerup has to take time to recharge (which I believe is 30 real-time minutes). Most of these powerups are pretty useful in-game, the Shield one comes especially in handy thanks to the OP enemies everywhere. 

  attachFull80619

Another mechanic is the re-introduction of weapon/shield durability, and let me just start off by saying it's easily the worst gameplay mechanic Nintendo has put in the game, and I hope whomever made the decision to make it so awful was fired. The biggest problem is that every weapon, shield, and bow in the game breaks. Period. Not a single weapon you come across in game actually lasts more than a 4-10 enemy kills, depending on the health of the enemy and if your weapon has a durability buff. The super cool, special Hylian Shield? Breakable. The super special  Lightscale Trident wielded by the champion of the Zora's, Mipha? Breakable, but can be re-acquired. Every bow you come across? Breakable. But surely the Master Sword at least lasts forever, right? Y'know, the Master Sword? The ultimate weapon? The one thing that can can stop evil in the world of Hyrule? WRONG. IT'S BREAKABLE. It's not even as durable as some of the other weapons you get, some weapons have a durability up buff that lasts longer than the Master Sword does. Thankfully it's not as bad as other weapons, because when your Master Sword “Runs out of energy (AKA breaks), it'll recharge after 10 minutes. But that's simply something that shouldn't happen in any game, let alone a Zelda game where it's the ultimate goddamn world changing weapon. It's not even that difficult to fix! Nintendo's solution to the durability problem is the simple and wrong one, pick up everything you see until you run out of inventory space. The correct solution Nintendo should have done? Repair kits or elixirs. Special weapons with infinite durability (y'know, like the master sword). Let Link punch stuff with his hands. 

 attachFull80620

One of the bigger changes with Breath of the Wild, though, is the vast open world that is Hyrule. The first thing I’m going to say is it’s pretty. While not the best-looking game in the world, Breath of the Wild has a certain aesthetic that works hand-in-hand with the Zelda franchise and produces a fairly gorgeous setting. The next thing I’m going to say is…that it’s a terrible open world. The biggest problem is that it’s just so empty and lifeless. Practically nothing is going on in at least 80+% of the entire map, it’s just empty hills, plains, and mountains with the occasional enemy encampment, a Stable/outpost thing, and filler-content shrines (which I’ll hit on later). Now, I get that it’s basically a post-apocalyptic world that Ganon has nearly dominated, but if you’re going to make a map that’s “bigger than Skyrim”, you have to actually fill it with things that are different and actually interesting.  Each stable has the same exact layout, with basic weapons strewn about everywhere, NPCs that give utterly boring “sidequests”, and Beedle the traveling merchant selling arrows and elixir ingredients. Practically every enemy outpost is basically the same, you have 4 or 5 Bokoblins or Moblins sitting around a fire or in a giant skull (that apparently are just everywhere?) a tower or two with archers that act as lookouts, and sometimes a nice chest that contains useless items that essentially make up for the lack of rupees in the world.  

 attachFull80624

Next, we'll talk about the filler content that makes up the true world of BOTW, Shrines. Shrines are basically little mini-dungeons that are tossed willy-nilly throughout Hyrule that basically exist to provide Link with spirit orbs, 4 of which you can exchange for heart containers or stamina vessels. Shrines are pretty important because, as far as I can tell, it's going to be your main source of heart containers in the game since I haven't found any kind of heart piece or container that wasn't included in a dungeon or quest. In the beginning, finding Shrines was pretty enjoyable. The puzzles were interesting, used some of those new "tablet apps" in a pretty interesting way and were actually challenging. But the main problem with Shrines, though, is they're all just so boring after a while. Shrines have 4 basic formulas, the first being the “Tests of Strength”, which involves killing one guardian enemy of varying strength that will one-shot you all game until you have at least 10+ hearts and all guardian-resist gear. The second are just basic puzzles that rely on your Sheikah Slate runes tablet apps, the third are basic gameplay puzzles that usually involves using the paraglider, doing physics based puzzles or just tilting a maze using gyroscopic controls. The fourth don't even have puzzles, it's just about actually getting to them that's the “challenge”. Not too bad, right? At least, until you realize there are 120 of these and most of them are really simple puzzles that take maybe a minute or two to go through. And the worst part? These 120 mini-puzzles are the replacement of around half the main dungeons normally available in a Zelda game. That's right, instead of having around 7 nice, well-rounded dungeons (and one shitty water temple), you get a whole 4 short dungeons and 120 shitty mini-puzzles/mini boss fights. 

 attachFull80623

This particular section I'm going to talk about the story  and the main missions of Breath of the Wild, and because of that I'm going to include the entire section in spoiler tags. If you don't want to know anything about the story of Breath of the Wild or about any of the quests, please avoid this entire section.

SPOILERS, AVOID THIS SECTION IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SPOILED.

*
*
*

The story of Breath of the Wild is pretty basic for a Zelda game. I'll break it down as simply as I can to avoid as much spoilers as possible but this will essentially cover the whole story as you discover it in the game. Basically, the Breath of the Wild takes place 100 years after “Calamity Ganon” has ravaged Hyrule and has taken over Hyrule Castle. Link, Zelda, and four champions from the four races of Hyrule were meant to stop Ganon by using these 4 “Divine Beasts”, which are essentially giant Shiekah mechs they discovered in a prophecy and dug out of the ground (along with the Guardian enemies you face later in the game). Ganon, being a tricky trickster, took over these Divine Beasts and Guardians, killed the Champions, and severely wounded Link who was then put into the Resurrection Chamber. Zelda, being the only one left, headed to Hyrule Castle to trap Ganon there so he couldn't take over the world. Link awakes 100 years later, with no memories, to find Hyrule a rather barren and empty land. After talking to a mysterious old man (who turns out to be the ghost of the Hyrulian King), Link finds out that he was supposed to be Zelda's protector 100 years ago and now he must defeat Calamity Ganon in an effort to save Zelda and the kingdom of Hyrule. Pretty simple. 


There are 4 “Main” quests that you'll get in Breath of the Wild which will branch off into their own objectives. The first is, obviously, beating Calamity Ganon. The second is to discover your lost memories by visiting places you and Zelda attended based off of pictures from your Shiekah Slate, the third is to retake the Divine Beasts from Ganon and release the Spirits of the 4 Champions, and the last is to, of course, retrieve the Master Sword. The first quest can be completed without the other three (thus beating the game), but it's usually recommended to do the other quests so you can be all powerful and have an easier time of beating Ganon. The rest of the quests, however, are the one's I have some problems with. 


I'll start off with the memories quest first, because it's the one that annoyed me more than the others. The main objective is to find 12 locations based off of vague geographical clues in pictures that you find on your Shiekah Slate (once the camera app is unlocked). That doesn't sound like it'd be too difficult, until you remember that Hyrule is supposed to be larger than Skyrim is, and unfortunately a lot of it looks relatively the same when you're looking at just a picture. I only found 4 of the 12 on my own, and 3 of them were on accident. The rest I had to look up in a guide, because the picture clues were so vague that they could've been in dozens of different places. When you show up to a memory location, you'll be taken to a cutscene where some of the back-story between Link, Zelda, and the four champions are discussed. Now Nintendo tried to be all deep and interesting with these cutscenes, giving you a “behind the scenes” look at how Link and Zelda and the four races got together. Unfortunately, the memories are so short and uninteresting that I found I had cared absolutely nothing for any of the “relationships” you supposedly had with these people, Zelda included.


The second quest we'll talk about is the Divine Beasts. This is where the majority of the main gameplay takes place, and unfortunately it's not that great. As mentioned previously, Ganon has taken control of these four Divine Beasts, and one of your tasks is to retake them so the spirits of the champions can finally rest and so you can use the beasts to beat up Ganon. First of all, these four beasts are the only main dungeons in the game. Instead of the usual 7 or 8 or however many, these four dungeons are it. Secondly, these Divine Beast Dungeons are super short. You could probably beat each dungeon in maybe 15 minutes, if you're pretty good at puzzles, and maybe 30 minutes if you're a bit slow sometimes. As I mentioned, a giant chunk of playtime for Breath of the Wild is just wandering around the empty world doing shrines and that's about it. All in all, you could probably beat these dungeons, acquire the master sword, and kill Ganon in something like 4 or 5 hours if you take everything slow.  Breath of the Wild focuses more on boring filler content then it does story or dungeons, and that, to me, is simply unacceptable in a Zelda game.


The last quest we'll talk about is receiving the Master Sword, because it too has some small problems in execution. In previous Zelda games, the way you retrieved the Master Sword was relatively the same. You'd complete a few dungeons, find the Lost Woods, then get the Master Sword and you'd use that for the rest of the game as your primary weapon. In Breath of the Wild, however, it's a bit more complicated. You could, theoretically, acquire the Master Sword as soon as you start up the game. All you have to do is find the Lost Woods, go through it, then pull the sword out of the standard pedestal it's always stuck in!...Except to pull the sword, you end up using your hearts. And if you don't have enough hearts, you'll die before being able to pull out the sword. You know how many hearts you're required to have just to pull the sword out of the pedestal? 13. 13 hearts are required just to use the breakable Master Sword. At best, you'd have to do 24 Shrines and the 4 main dungeons before you could get the sword. At worst, you'd have to do 40 Shrines if you wanted to get the Master Sword before doing any of the other dungeons in the world. But the kicker? The Master Sword isn't even required to beat Ganon, you could literally walk in his boss room with a full inventory of sticks and kill him that way (though that will never happen, thanks durability). 

END OF SPOILERS, YOU CAN START READING AGAIN.

*
*
*

The last thing I'm going to talk about is something that's rather important to the Zelda series, and that's the enemies and monsters that Link can fight. Breath of the Wild has various different climates and regions, and one would expect those regions to at least host a fair variety of monsters, right? Unfortunately, that's not the case here. It seems like Nintendo left out a lot of the classic enemies that one would expect in a Zelda game. Moblins, Lizalfos, Bokoblins, one class of human enemies, Keese, Chuchu's, Octoroks, Guardians, Wizzrobe's, Lynel's and...sentient rocks are basically the only normal enemies you're going to see in this game. But where are the Skulltula's? Or the Peahats? There aren't any Deku Shrubs, Leevers, Dodangos, Poes, Tektites, Bubbles of any kind, Like Likes, Floor/Wall Masters, and actual Stalfo's (there are just skeleton versions of moblins/bokoblins which die in 2 hits).  All of these enemies, appearing in most Zelda games released, are just straight up absent. 

Verdict

What We Liked ...
  • Good looking world that fits perfectly with the Zelda franchise.
  • More in-depth story telling, even if it's not all that in-depth.
  • Solid overall gameplay, despite some poor choices made by Nintendo.
What We Didn't Like ...
  • Poorly constructed, empty, repetitive open world.
  • Extreme artificial difficulty.
  • Whoever designed weapon durability is a moron.
  • Lack of classic Zelda enemies.
7
Gameplay
The gameplay, overall, is decent. A few of the things Nintendo changed when it comes to core Zelda gameplay work very well, but it seems they screwed up more than they improved. Despite these goofs, the gameplay remains at least better than some similar open world adventure games.
9
Presentation
Breath of the Wild is a good looking game. The Hyrule setting fits neatly into the "Updated WInd Waker" art style to provide a good looking world without making it seem overly bland and already done by other game developers.
6
Lasting Appeal
Open world games are hard to get right. You have to carefully construct each part of the world to keep the players interest while avoiding reusing certain aspects and details that provide a lasting experience. Nintendo, in my eyes, failed this part. The open world may look good, but it's simply too repetitive to truly want to explore every inch.
7
out of 10

Overall

Overall, Breath of the Wild isn't necessarily a bad game. I enjoyed a lot of what I played, actual dungeons were relatively fun and initial encounters with some shrines and areas were pretty enjoyable. But I can honestly say that I have a lot of issues with how the game works and how Nintendo setup certain aspects, and I refuse to overlook them like everyone else has "because Nintendo".
Good review! Would disagree with a few of these points from my own experience, but all in all well made! Quick note, were you aware when writing this that parts of the world (forests, enemy/camp placement) are partially random per game?
 
If that's true, I'd knock it down all the same. Using random generation like that in an open world game is the laziest form of world creation.
I personally think it helps make sure that nobody has the same experience in hyrule twice, but it is kinda lazy. Only reason i mention it is because you might have gotten a bad seed, making it seem repetitive.
 
Where's any of the weird jittery graphics this game has? Are they exclusive to the Switch version?
I'd say the performance issues are so well known at this point that everyone and their mother knows it's going to have a trash framerate and tripped out graphical errors regardless of platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hobbledehoy899
seriously are the main dungeons short?? I haven't done one yet. Atleast I hope I haven't.lol been playing with the shrines.
 
seriously are the main dungeons short?? I haven't done one yet. Atleast I hope I haven't.lol been playing with the shrines.
The main dungeons all consist of the same "find 6 terminals, fight the main boss" in each different beast which is, for the most part, very easy to do.
I did have trouble with the Zora dungeon, but only because I got a little turned around when it came to moving the big elephant trunk
So yeah, it's a little disappointing.
 
Thank you for this review it's good to see the honesty. Botw is a good game but it is far from a masterpiece, but I can't wait for you to get skewered by the extreme fanboys.

So glad that @Foxi4 or @Chary did not review this thing.
 
I disagree with this review in every way imaginable. Weapons breaking are an awesome design choice because there are many and so different weapons whereas in certain other games all you have is a bow. This design makes you pick a weapon according to the challenge and as you defeat a powerful foe you're likely to get one or more powerful weapons. It makes looting chests more compelling also, and as a consequence you're constantly looting and managing inventory, making choices this is such a great design decision overall!

How could the world be repetitive if every part of the world works differently, with different scenarios, flora, fauna, temperatures even raining and night from day changes the world a lot and there is so much to find and events as you go.

I like to find flaws in games, specially acclaimed ones but as I'm playing it I still couldn't find any on this. Everything is so well thought of and never a moment this game made me angry at something. Everything works as it should and I love how it encourages exploration. I haven't enjoyed Zelda this much since I've played OOT on my N64 in 1999 and even OOT pales in comparison nowdays.

I can only wonder if there was an "anti-bias" factor playing a role in the review since it's GBAtemp or maybe the reviewer himself prefers other games and systems. I wonder which game nowdays would be a 10 overall game for him so I could understand against which expectations he's holding Zelda against.

In my opinion, Zelda deserves all the praise it's getting, it's acessible, deep, clever and very well made and helped me restore faith in the gaming industry. But that's all a review is, an opinion, and as Zelda will probably be GOTY and would be if it were released in many of the years before 2017, this review is useful for those looking for a reason to shy away from a game they wanted but couldn't have and haters overall.
 
"Weapons breaking are an awesome design choice"
As a concept weapon durability can work, here it sounds like the laziest implementation of the concept going.

Other games that have done better do things like blocking, or blocking badly, costs durability. Weapons may not be completely destroyed and instead end up dull. The numbers can be such you can have some real fun rather than a 5 minute fling, and even if not you might be able to repair them in some way. Field repairs, possibly at a cost to overall durability, or overall durability until you can get somewhere real. On the master sword then maybe have it seriously dull after so many hours, there is already a reset mechanic for high level abilities and it should not be too hard to work that in here.

I am all for alternate or guided play via game mechanics and in game features rather than because the game designer says so but this ain't a shining example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub and Chary
Great honest review! It sucks when people pull their punches in reviews because of an obvious bias. The weapon durability really was a terrible design choice. It's so annoying how fast everything breaks. I think they should've taken a page from Dark Souls on this. It would be great if you could restore weapon durability by sitting at a fire.

Been playing the Wii U version and the framerate dips are also super irritating. It pulls you out of the immersion and really makes the game feel unpolished. I get that they want me to buy a Switch, but this is not the way to convince me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub and Chary
List of problems with this game.
  • EVERYTHING BREAKS (Weapons, bows, shields to be more specific)
  • STAMINA (I ******** Hate it)
  • YOU NEED STAMINA FOR EVERYTHING (Swimming, climbing and paragliding)
  • NO ZELDA SERIES ITEMS (Besides bombs, no hookshot, zora flippers, dash boots or something to mover faster, also no magic at all.)
  • ADDING DEFENSE SYSTEM (Had enough one hit kills, cause i need ARMOR)
  • ADDING ATTACK SYSTEM
  • LIMITED ITEM STORAGE (Item management is the best idea ever invented for a video game. For this zelda game it upsets me. Give me one weapon, shield, and bow that doesn't break, i don't care if is lowest attack, i'll be happy.)
  • WEATHER EFFECTS (Rain makes it hard to climb rocks WHICH YOU DO A LOT OF IN THIS GAME. Random thunder storms, FORCED TO UNEQUIP SPECIFIC WEAPONS TO AVOID THUNDER SHOCKS. Hot and cold is a issue? This game is too realistic, Is a video game, not real life.)
  • SHRINES (having to do so many of them to get a heart or stamina upgrade..... words end here, there is no more words for this statement.)
  • RUPEES (WHERE ARE THEY? My point is so hard to find any, having money issues in zelda is now another level of difficulty. Especially if "SPOILER" YOU NEED IT AS PART OF MAIN STORY AND SIDE QUEST)
Look is just my problems with the game, if these was not so trivial to making this difficult, I be able to enjoy it. Is like most of what make Zelda good game series is taken away and slapped with Dark souls difficulty on it, and i am no means a fan of this series, to be clear. I play a few games i enjoy some and dislike some.

Simply put, if i had stuff that don't break, no stamina, easier way to tavel especially swimming, and climbing walls, and doing it fast (maybe flying) no concern with weather conditions, and other few things i would feel bit more positive about it. But since some broken discoveries are made i can cope with it eventually. :blink:
 
Just one question, i dont care about spoilers. If and when you get the

master sword

can it ever break?
 
Just one question, i dont care about spoilers. If and when you get the

master sword

can it ever break?

It doesn't break, but it's not thr best weapon against every enemy, but it's the best weapon against enemies other weapons would suck against (guardians for instance) as the attack power on it jumps to 60 from 30 and it gets a special attack when your hearts are full
 
Tom... I'm still butt hurt over the Final Fantasy XV review you did. I'm surprised to didn't go on a tangent about the glitches and performance issues on this game.
 
Tom... I'm still butt hurt over the Final Fantasy XV review you did. I'm surprised to didn't go on a tangent about the glitches and performance issues on this game.
I ignored the performance issues with this particular review because it would've dropped the review score at least 1-2 points lower than it currently is. The mag staff and I agreed that it would be unfair to rate a game like this that's relatively good for a system that's brand new a low score because Nintendo doesn't know how to optimize their games properly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sonic Angel Knight
I just wish the weapons weren't made out of paper mache... I honestly like the idea of breakable weapons, but Nintendo made the weapons break too fast. I hope they fix that a bit in an update.
 
  • Like
Reactions: invaderyoyo
I guess everyone has different opinions, but didn't this site give a 9/10 to Nioh? That Dark Souls re-hash with terrible voice acting, a disjointed storyline and easier combat? BotW is easily a better and more original game than that.
 
The reviews are done by different people, Tom did not review that game, so that is probably not something to reference. Can't weigh the credibility of the site on one person's review when many people do reviews. (including members who can also review games if they please.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi
I ignored the performance issues with this particular review because it would've dropped the review score at least 1-2 points lower than it currently is. The mag staff and I agreed that it would be unfair to rate a game like this that's relatively good for a system that's brand new a low score because Nintendo doesn't know how to optimize their games properly.
Well I think the review would have been more honest if you did. What's the standard anyway? It just feels like there is no value to the scores you set for the games you review. Although I feel you are more accurate for the BoTW review (I'd Give it a 8/10 thinking it has more of a lasting appeal), to me I think you review too strictly compare to the other reviewers on the temp. Saying that I hope I didn't offend you because I do respect you and see your skills as a writer Tom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cfone89
haha I actually really dug a lot of the mechanics you didn't enjoy!

Loved the overworld, especially the towns and villages and all the little npc stories you could discover.
Also really enjoyed the durability mechanics, I felt it pushed me to explore a lot more and engage a lot more in combat than I normally would in a Zelda game.

I do agree on the lack of enemies, especially the world bosses, after fighting that giant rock monster for the 8th time I was quite done with it. What surprises me the most is how many enemies would fit perfectly into the design, Poes would be perfect for the post-apocalyptic setting and there's already a Deku Scrub shield deflecting mechanic in place with the Octoroks, why not just re-skin the shrub Octorok to be a Deku Scrub?

Also much like Twilight Princess (and not being able to call your horse until the endgame when you don't even need it any more because you have fast travel Jesus effing Christ Nintendo) Zelda screws up horses again, I know it's not realistic to be able to call your horse from the complete other side of the map but it sure is USEFUL and negates a lot of pointless slow backtracking across a field.

Lastly, can we quit it with the "ZELDA BIAS!!!"? People harp on about this every time one comes out, can we not just accept that maybe a bunch of people really genuinely just enjoyed this game? I personally thought GTAIV was a clunky mess of a game full of pointless busywork and shitty characters but nobody's crying "GTA BIAS!!!" when GTA gets 10/10. This attitude of "because Zelda" or "because Nintendo" just makes it look like you think all over opinions have no merit. You voiced your opinions and I can respect that but you don't need that little "fuck the man, I do what I want" statement to justify how much you did or did not enjoy something.
 
Well to me it seem he mentioned all the problems i also find flaws. To be honest is not a terrible game, the original concept of Zelda game was exploring and discovery, this game does make it more like that. But it was much like the first two zelda games where is basically a "You're on your own" kind of thing that required more of a strategy guide and difficulty.

Both zelda games have cryptic information that would be almost hard to complete without a walkthrough (In that case nintendo power) Little or no information to do or get jobs done makes it a tedious situation. Tell me what i need to do and i'll do it. Slay that giant beast? Get me a weapon that doesn't break and put me inside of them, i'll finish the rest. There is plenty of EXTRA BUFFER between the main quest. "Go to zora domain, talk to the king, talk to the prince, find shock arrows, co-operate with the prince to find a way inside the dungeon, activate 6 consoles, beat the boss." Common zelda dungeon is just find the one item you need, and then kill the boss.

I appreciate the effort the put into making the game more of a exploring experience but there is too much problems that make exploring less fun during main quest and probably something you would do after finish the game, which most people who finish the game would not play again in most cases (But only cause they found it so much and probably had enough) If i had to say, its probably a way of trying to mimic just cause 3 open world with dark souls restrictions and difficulty and metal gear solid 4 sneaking and realism with the weather effects and such. Is like playing 3 games in one, I'm surprised is still able to be a zelda game, and zelda 2 is the least zelda game of the series. :P
 
N
I disagree with this review in every way imaginable. Weapons breaking are an awesome design choice because there are many and so different weapons whereas in certain other games all you have is a bow. This design makes you pick a weapon according to the challenge and as you defeat a powerful foe you're likely to get one or more powerful weapons. It makes looting chests more compelling also, and as a consequence you're constantly looting and managing inventory, making choices this is such a great design decision overall!

How could the world be repetitive if every part of the world works differently, with different scenarios, flora, fauna, temperatures even raining and night from day changes the world a lot and there is so much to find and events as you go.

I like to find flaws in games, specially acclaimed ones but as I'm playing it I still couldn't find any on this. Everything is so well thought of and never a moment this game made me angry at something. Everything works as it should and I love how it encourages exploration. I haven't enjoyed Zelda this much since I've played OOT on my N64 in 1999 and even OOT pales in comparison nowdays.

I can only wonder if there was an "anti-bias" factor playing a role in the review since it's GBAtemp or maybe the reviewer himself prefers other games and systems. I wonder which game nowdays would be a 10 overall game for him so I could understand against which expectations he's holding Zelda against.

In my opinion, Zelda deserves all the praise it's getting, it's acessible, deep, clever and very well made and helped me restore faith in the gaming industry. But that's all a review is, an opinion, and as Zelda will probably be GOTY and would be if it were released in many of the years before 2017, this review is useful for those looking for a reason to shy away from a game they wanted but couldn't have and haters overall.
You enjoyed oot?:ohnoes: thats why you dont see the huge field empty....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub
N
Btw great review! Finally could find a true analysis of the pros and cons of the game... thanks!
 
You enjoyed oot?:ohnoes: thats why you dont see the huge field empty....
Yeah, there's a difference between breakable weapons which are executed correctly in many games (Fallout: New Vegas comes to mind) and weapons made out of styrofoam. Open world is great, provided there's stuff to see (again, Fallout). Randomly-generated dungeons are great if the algorithm creates interesting and challenging dungeons (as in Diablo). Introducing interesting mechanics is not enough, it's the execution that matters. If the game executes lofty ideas poorly, the score should reflect that. Tom is a harsh but ultimately fair critic, not every game needs to be a 10, and besides, 7 is a great score as-is.
 
N
Yeah, there's a difference between breakable weapons which are executed correctly in many games (Fallout: New Vegas comes to mind) and weapons made out of styrofoam. Open world is great, provided there's stuff to see (again, Fallout). Randomly-generated dungeons are great if the algorithm creates interesting and challenging dungeons (as in Diablo). Introducing interesting mechanics is not enough, it's the execution that matters. If the game executes lofty ideas poorly, the score should reflect that. Tom is a harsh but ultimately fair critic, not every game needs to be a 10, and besides, 7 is a great score as-is.
Only thing i dont agree with you is that interesting mechanics arent enough... thats the reason for the success of minecraft, it has no story whatsoever; but it has lots of great mechanics and most of the die-hard community of this game will tell you thats exactly what compeled them to this game...

Botw isnt as graphically butiful as nintendo tells us. Most of the games nowdays have better graphics. And open world isnt new to us either... the lack of big temples makes me angry, and weapons that last 10 enemies max? Srsly? Should have made some more weapons which have better durability ir something...
 
Only thing i dont agree with you is that interesting mechanics arent enough... thats the reason for the success of minecraft, it has no story whatsoever; but it has lots of great mechanics and most of the die-hard community of this game will tell you thats exactly what compeled them to this game...

Botw isnt as graphically butiful as nintendo tells us. Most of the games nowdays have better graphics. And open world isnt new to us either... the lack of big temples makes me angry, and weapons that last 10 enemies max? Srsly? Should have made some more weapons which have better durability ir something...
Minecraft was successful because it used a relatively new mechanic *well*, that's an important thing to mention. There were Minecraft-like games out there before Minecraft, you just never heard about them because they weren't as competently made, that's what I'm talking about. My point is that an idea is only as good as its execution an you can have the best intentions, but without the capacity to turn them into reality, you can only end up with mediocrity.
 
N
Minecraft was successful because it used a relatively new mechanic *well*, that's an important thing to mention. There were Minecraft-like games out there before Minecraft, you just never heard about them because they weren't as competently made, that's what I'm talking about. My point is that an idea is only as good as its execution an you can have the best intentions, but without the capacity to turn them into reality, you can only end up with mediocrity.
Yeah with that I can agree. The advertisement of botw as a "huge open world game" made me nervous instantly- the last time I heard that was with oot where they included this huge open world as a tech-demo and was so empty that I hated it really much. I didnt play it at my childhood so I had no nostalgia feel when I picked it up on the 3ds and it was after I already finished mm (was a mistake, I wanted to do it chronologically but whatever) which is considered shorter and smaller map. But lemme tell ya- mm was 67/70 hours of gameplay, while oot had 50/80, the other part being a time to travel between places. The ocarina didnt help much with the transportation- 5 teleport point on this huge map isnt enough...
So if botw will feel to me the same as oot- i dont even want to pick it up in the first place...
 
This is the first good 3d Zelda game IMHO (yes, I didn't like WWHD, TPHD was meh at best, and OoT and MM were just okay, haven't beat any of the 2d games though), weapon durability hasn't bothered me much and is needed to keep the game balanced yet open (otherwise everyone would just make a mad dash for the royal weapons and be permanetly end-game level strong in less than 3 hours of playing), I haven't been OHKO'd in a while (aka since getting the hyrule gear from Kakariko(?) village), the world seems really alive and filled (I'm almost positive I saw bokoblins hunting a dear, they were definetly chasing it). Shires are infinetly better than dungeons and the 900 korok puzzles are stangely fun (albiet easy) to find and solve. Enemy variety could be better but it isn't that big of a deal to me. I probably sound like a fanboy but this game is at least a 9/10 so far (not far at all story-wise so I don't know how much I'll like the story).

Seems like I'm not the only one to disagree though:
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/189707-the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild/75080502?page=1
 
R
Solid points here but Im gonna have to disagree with you on the story. The story this time was trash and almost non-existent. None of the cutscenes are important to really anything and never go beyond just being "fond memories". Outside of cutscenes, every time an important NPC tells you story stuff, it's always the same thing, "Ganons back and our champion died 100 years ago".

Honestly the story needed another year of development alone
 
Great honest review! It sucks when people pull their punches in reviews because of an obvious bias. The weapon durability really was a terrible design choice. It's so annoying how fast everything breaks. I think they should've taken a page from Dark Souls on this. It would be great if you could restore weapon durability by sitting at a fire.

Been playing the Wii U version and the framerate dips are also super irritating. It pulls you out of the immersion and really makes the game feel unpolished. I get that they want me to buy a Switch, but this is not the way to convince me.

THe switch version also has frame rate drops and crashes alot
 
THe switch version also has frame rate drops and crashes alot
frame drops in docked, yes. I haven't even heard of the game crashing anywhere though. The only time it has "crashed" for me is when I (intentionally) took the game card out without realising the game was still running.
 
frame drops in docked, yes. I haven't even heard of the game crashing anywhere though. The only time it has "crashed" for me is when I (intentionally) took the game card out without realising the game was still running.
I've seen it freeze completely in one of the many "Switch has problems" videos, so it does happen, but I'm not sure if I should blame the game or the console here.
 
Don't quit your day job kiddo. This review is a garbage fire.
There is a general line of thought that runs assertions made without reason can be dismissed without reason. That said improvement is always something to strive for so do you care to elaborate on where this may have fallen short?
 
Hello this is Link. Do you have a sword for me ? Mine Just broke.

Seriously I've played 15 hours, got to cocorico, elimith, beat 15 shrines, just found my 1st memory. And I just love it, I love explore this big overworld, I just cant stop playin' it and taking my time before going on the next main quest event. I can say this is one of the best games I've ever played. 9.5/10.
 
If the game crash or freeze, i wonder if is people who playing the digital version or cart version? Some people reported faulty cart slot for games not recognizing it and how inserting headphone jack into the system fix it. So that is something to think about.
 
If the game crash or freeze, i wonder if is people who playing the digital version or cart version? Some people reported faulty cart slot for games not recognizing it and how inserting headphone jack into the system fix it. So that is something to think about.
Huh? 3.5mm jack fixes the cartslot? Short circuit?
 
I am sorry, but the reviews of Tom Bond are a joke and it gets worse with every review. He "didn't refuse to overlook things because of Nintento", he just wanted to dislike the game. The way the text is written is far away from any good journalism and has a condescending tone from the beginning.
 
I am sorry, but the reviews of Tom Bond are a joke and it gets worse with every review. He "didn't refuse to overlook things because of Nintento", he just wanted to dislike the game. The way the text is written is far away from any good journalism and has a condescending tone from the beginning.
As someone who thinks this game was 10/10 personally, no. This is one of the best written reviews i've seen of the game, and the first thats brave enough to bring up the flaws that IGN or other reviews overlooked.
 
I seen worst, i just watched someone on twitch i am following review the game. "If you don't like this game you are a moron, a idiot, something must be wrong with you, this game is perfect, i love it." :ninja:
 
Sounds like somebody's trying too hard to hate on the game. The "artificial difficulty" and "lack of zelda enemies" are the worst offenders. Weapon durability makes the game enjoyable IMO. You're not seeing the point of it. Take a Souls games for example. You can get a longsword early on and NEVER use anything else. Meanwhile in BOTW you have to constantly rotate weapons because they're disposable. I found myself using mops and spears, things I'd never have used otherwise. Besides, the special weapons like the flame sword can be fixed.

The bit about difficulty is laughable. This guy must suck ass at videogames. The game's not hard, and even if you die, you spawn right where you died thanks to the autosave feature. Dying is just a way you get to to try new things. Besides, just equip better armor if you don't want to get one shot.

The overworld is VERY well designed. Lots of points of interest, a lot of versatility. It's filled with stuff to do everywhere. I often find myself sidetracked because I went out to do something like find a material I needed, and instead found something else like a huge ass dragon floating on a lake, or a high cliff with a strange rock formation that caught my interest, which ends up having a korok puzzle on it (over 900 of those in the overworld btw).

This guy's a moron. The game deserves a 9/10 at the very least and it's the best 3D Zelda game ever made.
 
What? I honestly agree with not giving a 10 to this game cause not perfect and things like that, but this reviex just pretends to be 'OMG real review other were paid' and finally kinda reuses the same arguments as the stupid trolls of the YT comments. I mean, seriously? Sonic Lost World, which is an absolute piece of crap (Yeah, I've played it), got a 6.8, and this gets a 7? At least please be consistent. I lmean, what? This games deserves more than several Zelda games in the franchise, and yet this is almost the worst-rated on GBATemp so far. 6 in 'Lasting Appeal', while still no one on this planet have finished the game 100% after hundreds of hours of gameplay?

Also, the obviously obvious subjectivity of this review is more than obvious. Its sole purpose is to give a non-good grade tpo this game. Personnaly I would give this game 8.5-9.5, 10 if I am in a great day, 8 bare minimum. Stop bitching around by creating buzz ("Booh, Big N paid IGN booh"). Stop overexposing the gameplay flaws just to hide the beauty of this game. If I was to review this review, I would give it a 3 or a 4.
 
The reviews are done by different people, Tom did not review that game, so that is probably not something to reference. Can't weigh the credibility of the site on one person's review when many people do reviews. (including members who can also review games if they please.)

So, it's going to be 9/10 for Nioh, probably same for Horizon Zero Dawn and 7/10 for BotW because of an unlucky draft when it comes to who reviews it.

There was a reviews site who gave Rise of the Tomb Raider an 8 when it was released for the Xbox One and then one year later a 9 when it was released on PS4. Reason? Different reviewers they said although the game is exactly the same.

Some people do make purchase decisions based on reviews, this kind of stuff does dictate the future of the gaming industry. Oughta be way more serious than that. Show us to what standards is BotW being measured up against, what is a 10/10 because I'm pretty sure it blows out of the water any other action/adventure rpg out there.
 
So, it's going to be 9/10 for Nioh, probably same for Horizon Zero Dawn and 7/10 for BotW because of an unlucky draft when it comes to who reviews it.

There was a reviews site who gave Rise of the Tomb Raider an 8 when it was released for the Xbox One and then one year later a 9 when it was released on PS4. Reason? Different reviewers they said although the game is exactly the same.

Some people do make purchase decisions based on reviews, this kind of stuff does dictate the future of the gaming industry. Oughta be way more serious than that. Show us to what standards is BotW being measured up against, what is a 10/10 because I'm pretty sure it blows out of the water any other action/adventure rpg out there.
You want examples of 10/10? Unreal Tournament. Perfect execution of the genre for its time, stable and extremely enjoyable, defined gaming for years to come. Half Life - another perfect game, completely redefined how storytelling works in an FPS environment. There's loads, and you can tell they're 10/10 because they're liked unanimously. A 10/10 has to be not only competent, but groundbreaking and genre-defining. BotW is Skyrim Lite. By the way, get the idea that 7 out of 10 is a bad score out of your head - it's a great score, if we assume that 1 is unplayable garbage and 5 is a competent game. Anything above 5 is extra merit. Stop worrying about numerical scores for that matter - read what he wrote and base your opinion on his experience of playing the game. Yours might be different, his pros might be cons for you and vice versa, you're the one making the judgement call, he's just relaying his experience of playing the game.
 
Hrrrm, seems like the reviewer isnt a fan of open world games and exploring in general and how this game actually shows how a open world game should be and rewards exploration.Its different from past zelda but i still like it.It feels just like playing oot when i was a kid and having that sense of awe and wanting to explore every corner of the world which other games dont really do well.The weapon system is also a great feature as at first i hated it but after leaving the great platuea i came to realize how it rewards finding a new weapon and encouraging you to find new weapons constantly rather than just finding the strongest weapon and just using it and not bother with the weaker ones.Although i do agree if they could last a little longer or have an indicator for the durability.The reviewer seems very harsh and the lowest i would say it could get was an 8.5-9 :/
 
Hrrrm, seems like the reviewer isnt a fan of open world games and exploring in general and how this game actually shows how a open world game should be and rewards exploration.Its different from past zelda but i still like it.It feels just like playing oot when i was a kid and having that sense of awe and wanting to explore every corner of the world which other games dont really do well.The weapon system is also a great feature as at first i hated it but after leaving the great platuea i came to realize how it rewards finding a new weapon and encouraging you to find new weapons constantly rather than just finding the strongest weapon and just using it and not bother with the weaker ones.Although i do agree if they could last a little longer or have an indicator for the durability.The reviewer seems very harsh and the lowest i would say it could get was an 8.5-9 :/
In order for an open world game to be compelling the world itself has to seem alive - even games like GTA have completely pointless NPC's that'll argue in a coffee shop or other random events that make their game world seem "lived in". Random shrines don't constitute that kind of content. Frankly, with all the guardians around it's kind of puzzling how Hyllians even function in BotW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cfone89
In order for an open world game to be compelling the world itself has to seem alive - even games like GTA have completely pointless NPC's that'll argue in a coffee shop or other random events that make their game world seem "lived in". Random shrines don't constitute that kind of content. Frankly, with all the guardians around it's kind of puzzling how Hyllians even function in BotW.
Well for me the npcs were pretty good but meh everone has their own opinions :/
 
Well for me the npcs were pretty good but meh everone has their own opinions :/
I have no opinion as I haven't finished the game yet or played it enough to have one, but I'm sick of reviewers giving it 10's - it's not a 10, it is flawed, and it would be disingenuous not to expose the flaws to the public just because it's a Zelda game.
 
I have no opinion as I haven't finished the game yet or played it enough to have one, but I'm sick of reviewers giving it 10's - it's not a 10, it is flawed, and it would be disingenuous not to expose the flaws to the public just because it's a Zelda game.
yeah and i never said it was a 10 .. just that this review seems overly harsh where at least an 8 would be more fitting lel
 
even games like GTA have completely pointless NPC's that'll argue in a coffee shop or other random events that make their game world seem "lived in". Random shrines don't constitute that kind of content.
It's like we didn't play the same game.

What about the lady that gets mad if you step on her flowers? And the guy who tells you not to jump from a bridge if you try to? And the two treasure hunters that tell you about a cave that you can actually find and get a neat flame sword inside? Not to mention all the NPCs have schedules like in Majora's Mask, they'll react to a multitude of things like running away from rain. Some will even comment and ask you to wear something if you come across them in underwear.
 
It's like we didn't play the same game.

What about the lady that gets mad if you step on her flowers? And the guy who tells you not to jump from a bridge if you try to? And the two treasure hunters that tell you about a cave that you can actually find and get a neat flame sword inside? Not to mention all the NPCs have schedules like in Majora's Mask, they'll react to a multitude of things like running away from rain. Some will even comment and ask you to wear something if you come across them in underwear.
I'm not specifically criticising BotW, I'm stating a general rule of thumb. As I said, I haven't played the game enough to have an opinion, but from what I *can* tell, it's far from a genre-defining 10/10. It's a great first attempt by Nintendo, what else is there to say?
 
I'm not specifically criticising BotW, I'm stating a general rule of thumb. As I said, I haven't played the game enough to have an opinion, but from what I *can* tell, it's far from a genre-defining 10/10. It's a great first attempt by Nintendo, what else is there to say?
You need to play the entire game first before you can really criticize it.

I've played it for like 30 hours, it's barely nothing as I've only scratched the surface, and so far the game's simply breathtaking. The way the game's laid out, if you think you can do something, you can probably do it, and it's fantastic.

One example are wild animals. They behave like you'd expect them to. Wild foxes for example - they'll always run away if you get close enough, but if you can get to sneak close to them, stay behind a rock so they don't see you and throw in some fish, they'll notice the scent and come to eat it with caution. Afterwards they'll either search for more fish (you can try throwing more but that might scare them away) or lay down and take a nap. I approached it exactly like I'd try in real life, and everything played out accordingly.

It's things like these, the attention to detail, that really sets this game apart. Yes, it is genre defining. If I ever play another open-world game anymore that won't let me do these things, it won't feel natural.
 
You want examples of 10/10? Unreal Tournament. Perfect execution of the genre for its time, stable and extremely enjoyable, defined gaming for years to come. Half Life - another perfect game, completely redefined how storytelling works in an FPS environment. There's loads, and you can tell they're 10/10 because they're liked unanimously. A 10/10 has to be not only competent, but groundbreaking and genre-defining. BotW is Skyrim Lite. By the way, get the idea that 7 out of 10 is a bad score - it's a great score, if we assume that 1 is unplayable garbage and 5 is a competent game. Anything above 5 is extra merit. Stop worrying about numerical scores for that matter - read what he wrote and base your opinion on his experience of playing the game. Yours might be different, his pros might be cons for you and vice versa, you're the one making the judgement call, he's just relaying his experience of playing the game.
I've seen a lot of garbage getting 7 or higher. Yes, 7 is garbage. The same type of criticism he gave zelda could be made for those games you talked about. UT "Quake lite", not innovative gameplay, repetitive, boring and so on. Half life "generic shooter", basic fps mechanics and so forth. I'm not saying these games are bad, I'm just pointing out how poorly based the review is. This is nothing like Skyrim. You can't really go anywhere in skyrim by just climbing, content doesn't get obsolete 10 hours into it, you don't have to manage garbage in Zelda like you do in Todd Howard's games. Zelda always have a challenge at least mild in hand, everything you do in Zelda is meaningful and rewarding, BotW gets everything done right and it's far from a niche game - it's meant to be enjoyable for everyone, something none of these games you gave a 10 are. Skyrim is a bad joke compared to BotW. Weapons breaking is never a problem, the game has plenty of them and you lack more inventory space than weapons to find, what makes finding koroks once more a blessing. You will have a problem of course if you're trying to beat a guardian with wooden sticks.

Temp is lucky to not get sued with the "Un-paid review" statement unless you can prove Nintendo could just put out 60 or more professional reviews in their pockets for a perfect score. Actually it would be way more plausible if Sony were paying for bad reviews in their desperate struggle to squash Nintendo at every turn, but I believe all this review is trying to do is to stand out in the crowd and gather haters and sole-system owners together around it for more site views. I love the temp but I'm honestly disappointed by this review.
 
Yeah, I'm going to side with the "this review is pretty terrible" crowd.

I don't think this game is perfect, but the reasons you picked to dislike it seem remarkably petty (And the open-world comment seems ridiculous, if you compare this to other open-world games. Especially Skyrim. Without mods, that game has very little variety).

I understand that people have varying tastes, but your arguments (Much like the unending praise of other reviewers) seem steeped in bias. Maybe you really dislike the game, but the way you wrote this just comes off as you wanting to score it lower than everyone else in order to be edgy. This may not be the greatest game ever, but bring decent arguments for why things aren't great, rather than "No stalfos in this game, even if there are a bunch of stalfos. I just want the one that looks like a person. Just that one."

Also, your insistence on replacing "Sheikah Slate" with tablet annoyed me to no end. But that leads into the whole "the way you wrote this made it look like you had an agenda" thing.
 
I Love Love Love this game, and after you reach the first village, insta-death isn't a problem because you can literally just pick up fairies and hold them in your inventory, they will insta-revive you if you die. Also, if you reach a certain village, you gain access to an arrow that can 1-shot the Guardians.
 
I will have to give Nintendo some credit. All I saw in the early builds were hallmarks of a dev seeing all the fun some devs have with games and leaping in without an appreciation of what goes into it. The end result seems to pretty unanimously be that it is at least vaguely competent, though from comments made it seems to have been a patch it until it works affair (the wind and the jars anecdote that is floating around likely would not have happened in most approaches to game physics).
I do however have the following going through my head when seeing all this and at best it allows for a certain suspension of disbelief, no doubt a good game design trick but easy enough to see through if you are a cynical bastard


That said as much as I enjoy open world at the time it is rarely something that actually draws me back in, exception for space games and driving games but those are more akin to free roam than open world. Maybe I should review open world games for their fun at the time and discount longevity.
Games with a decent horde mode or something like that on the other hand... Equally free form (right now I have sniper elite on the go) missions do well, as do things like Dead Rising.

Huh? 3.5mm jack fixes the cartslot? Short circuit?
Without so much as scanning the PCB I have seen it before that sticking something in the jack disables the audio and thus provides enough current/stops dropping Voltage enough for something else to work. On more worn devices it can also be that the jack puts a bit of stress on a circuit and allows a bad connection/joint to work better.

Also, your insistence on replacing "Sheikah Slate" with tablet annoyed me to no end. But that leads into the whole "the way you wrote this made it look like you had an agenda" thing.

Mission managed then
*passes $5 wager*
More seriously though replacing proper nouns with something a bit more descriptive does often make for better writing form, especially if you are targeting those without a knowledge of the work. If it had been that dumb cunt tablet then you might have grounds for something.

You need to play the entire game first before you can really criticize it.

Always one of my favourite things to debate and while it is certainly possible to miss key aspects by doing your own thing (I played skyrim for something like 80 hours and did not earn a single shout, did almost everything else though) and not following designated story telling route I am not sure it is essential in all cases.

I've seen a lot of garbage getting 7 or higher. Yes, 7 is garbage.

Temp is lucky to not get sued with the "Un-paid review" statement unless you can prove Nintendo could just put out 60 or more professional reviews in their pockets for a perfect score.
Most slander/libel laws tend to want to be specific before they are applied.

Equally can we not state that 7 is good? It lines up on the number scale. Granted I hate scoring things and would much rather have the text serve as the assessment of the work.
 
It's funny how many people say that they are happy to get real review just because it rates the game worse than most of the other reviews.

While no one should deny that the game has obvious problems/flaws (some parts of the overworld are empty, the story itself is too short etc) I think that the game deserves more than a 7/10 because most of the people find the gameplay very good (to quote a german let's player who doesn't have much to do with nintendo lps: the games makes more fun than I want to admit). The game has flaws but it makes fun and that's what a game should do in my opinion.
I don't think that "Lack of classic Zelda enemies" is a con for a review that wants to refuse to overlook flaws "because it's nintendo".
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJason005
I completely understand why the problems you had were problems for you. They aren't nearly as bad from my perspective, though. I see many of them to be active decisions to deal with the open-world problems that usually present. The "hoarder" mentality you get from any of the bethesda games was dealt with by having limited inventory and by having weapons break. so rather than a weapon you keep until you find something with better stats, you selectively keep the best weapon for the task, and are always on the lookout for potential replacements. I *like* this. This also helps with the barrenness, by every outpost being functional to a degree.

I do agree, though, that I wish there was more skill-based rewards other than just not dying. A more difficult moblin camp capture should have a bigger reward, or contribute to something substantial, rather than just random items with random attributes (more or less). I'd love to have seen achievements or some sort of goal with moblin camps. Perhaps clearing out an area changed the flow of the game, and clearing some of them near a town caused the town to expand, or some such thing. I dunno, I'd have like to have seen more integration.

But to be fair, games like skyrim and the like hardly fare better. But I personally just like walking around, discovering places. I do wish there was more intrique and unique local events, but so far I'm still having loads of fun...though the one-hit kills suck pretty hard.
 
You need to play the entire game first before you can really criticize it.

I've played it for like 30 hours, it's barely nothing as I've only scratched the surface, and so far the game's simply breathtaking. The way the game's laid out, if you think you can do something, you can probably do it, and it's fantastic.

One example are wild animals. They behave like you'd expect them to. Wild foxes for example - they'll always run away if you get close enough, but if you can get to sneak close to them, stay behind a rock so they don't see you and throw in some fish, they'll notice the scent and come to eat it with caution. Afterwards they'll either search for more fish (you can try throwing more but that might scare them away) or lay down and take a nap. I approached it exactly like I'd try in real life, and everything played out accordingly.

It's things like these, the attention to detail, that really sets this game apart. Yes, it is genre defining. If I ever play another open-world game anymore that won't let me do these things, it won't feel natural.
No, I don't - that's the biggest fallacy you could possibly bring up. I can criticise it at any point if I see elements worth criticising, which I do. It's not my review, I'm just adding my two cents based on what I've seen.
I've seen a lot of garbage getting 7 or higher. Yes, 7 is garbage. The same type of criticism he gave zelda could be made for those games you talked about. UT "Quake lite", not innovative gameplay, repetitive, boring and so on. Half life "generic shooter", basic fps mechanics and so forth. I'm not saying these games are bad, I'm just pointing out how poorly based the review is. This is nothing like Skyrim. You can't really go anywhere in skyrim by just climbing, content doesn't get obsolete 10 hours into it, you don't have to manage garbage in Zelda like you do in Todd Howard's games. Zelda always have a challenge at least mild in hand, everything you do in Zelda is meaningful and rewarding, BotW gets everything done right and it's far from a niche game - it's meant to be enjoyable for everyone, something none of these games you gave a 10 are. Skyrim is a bad joke compared to BotW. Weapons breaking is never a problem, the game has plenty of them and you lack more inventory space than weapons to find, what makes finding koroks once more a blessing. You will have a problem of course if you're trying to beat a guardian with wooden sticks.

Temp is lucky to not get sued with the "Un-paid review" statement unless you can prove Nintendo could just put out 60 or more professional reviews in their pockets for a perfect score. Actually it would be way more plausible if Sony were paying for bad reviews in their desperate struggle to squash Nintendo at every turn, but I believe all this review is trying to do is to stand out in the crowd and gather haters and sole-system owners together around it for more site views. I love the temp but I'm honestly disappointed by this review.
You seem to misunderstand. We literally don't get paid to write reviews - we write them because we like it and want to provide you guys with content. Professional outfits, by definition, get paid to create content, and there's nothing I need to "prove" by saying that - that's their job. Nobody ever brought up Nintendo paying for good reviews, that's a fabrication that exists in your own head. As for 7/10 being a "garbage" score, that's simply incorrect. If you see "garbage games" getting scores like that all the time, perhaps it's your personal taste that's the issue here. You could absolutely say those things about UT, HL and many other actual 10/10 games, it's all subjective anyways, you're getting upset over a number someone arbitrarily chose to summarise their experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sonic Angel Knight
It's funny how many people say that they are happy to get real review just because it rates the game worse than most of the other reviews.

While no one should deny that the game has obvious problems/flaws (some parts of the overworld are empty, the story itself is too short etc) I think that the game deserves more than a 7/10 because most of the people find the gameplay very good (to quote a german let's player who doesn't have much to do with nintendo lps: the games makes more fun than I want to admit). The game has flaws but it makes fun and that's what a game should do in my opinion.
I don't think that "Lack of classic Zelda enemies" is a con for a review that wants to refuse to overlook flaws "because it's nintendo".
To quote a consensus opinion, never mind one so dubious, in a review I guess could be possible but generally we have reviews to be the opinion of one, or a few, that directly played it and are opining on the matter.

I have my problems with signature enemies in things, mostly because it is a small step above fan fiction by the time most are said and done*, but in this case it does seem like a point worth mentioning. Had it been "no octoroks, -3 from total score" then something might be said. Some keep wanting to tell me this is a massive leap, mainly for the series but some want to say for gaming too, almost akin to the advent of scrolling or 3d. To then not have a reimagining of something in that would be something to note in passing.
Going down a slightly different route, did it detract, would it have added, how hard would it have been to add? Given the answers would be debatable, almost certainly yes and theoretically not a lot but given the amount of palette swaps we saw... respectively. It would not even have to pepper the landscape -- cave of the last band of deku scrubs might have broken up the monotony. Hopefully I have not given them DLC ideas, though I would be seriously amused to see this become a game you buy the gold/complete version of a year down the line, a la Bethesda games.

*I recall watching a presentation on whatever of the Dungeons and Dragons tabletop games went sort of open source and wondering somewhat when the things held back included some of said signature enemies (those floating eye things called beholders or something). I did not really see the downside.
 
Honestly, after reading this review I'm kind of ashamed that I recently signed up for this forum.

Contrarian does not equal superior. Your presumption that all other scores were as high as they were due to sheer conditional bias is utterly preposterous. Truly, this is one of the most ridiculous reviews I have read in quite some time.

Fight the power, everyone else is stupid... what an absolute dumpster fire of a product review.
 
No, I don't - that's the biggest fallacy you could possibly bring up. I can criticise it at any point if I see elements worth criticising, which I do. It's not my review, I'm just adding my two cents based on what I've seen.
You seem to misunderstand. We literally don't get paid to write reviews - we write them because we like it and want to provide you guys with content. Professional outfits, by definition, get paid to create content, and there's nothing I need to "prove" by saying that - that's their job. Nobody ever brought up Nintendo paying for good reviews, that's a fabrication that exists in your own head. As for 7/10 being a "garbage" score, that's simply incorrect. If you see "garbage games" getting scores like that all the time, perhaps it's your personal taste that's the issue here. You could absolutely say those things about UT, HL and many other actual 10/10 games, it's all subjective anyways, you're getting upset over a number someone arbitrarily chose to summarise their experience.

I like it how you imply that I said the temp got paid, when i actually told I believe you wanted your review to stand out among the crowd and then tries to dust off the "Real, un-paid review" statement as something else. This is not how it works though.
 
I can only wonder if there was an "anti-bias" factor playing a role in the review since it's GBAtemp or maybe the reviewer himself prefers other games and systems. I wonder which game nowdays would be a 10 overall game for him so I could understand against which expectations he's holding Zelda against.
They're comparing it exclusively against OoT.
 
I like it how you imply that I said the temp got paid, when i actually told I believe you wanted your review to stand out among the crowd and then tries to dust off the "Real, un-paid review" statement as something else. This is not how it works though.
Firstly, it's not my review - the reviews here express the opinion of the writer, not the site or anybody on it. Second, I very much doubt Tom "intended" to come across in any particular way as he's criminally honest and doesn't care what other people think about his work, ever. Third, we're here exclusively to create content that is honest and palatable to our readers. At times some of it is controversial, but it's honest nonetheless. If you believe the game was scored unfairly, that's your opinion. It'd be dishonest of Tom to give the game a score higher than he believed it should get as his one and only task was to write a review of *his* experience with the game, not an advert for the game. As for the money stuff, I misunderstood you, so apologies for that.
 
I just wish the weapons weren't made out of paper mache... I honestly like the idea of breakable weapons, but Nintendo made the weapons break too fast. I hope they fix that a bit in an update.
Granted switching takes a lot of time to get used to but you will need to learn being strategic in weapon usage (I will argue the durability should be doubled), avoiding enemies or not (even the option of mercy if you may). Though I do miss jabbing with a sword which has better dps and less recoil than swinging, which is now exclusive to spears.
 
So many people think 7/10 equates to an "average" or mediocre score, probably since that was the grading scale back in school. Look at almost any other review site, as a 5/10 is what is considered a "c" there.

Personally I agree with all the negatives stated in the review, but I don't believe it should have resulted in a 7/10, unless that 7 is a 7.8. I lean more to the 8/10 score.

Barren open world? Normally that adds to the immersion, as Shadow of the Colossus has shown us, but after 30+ hours into the game I am not exactly immersed and moderately irate at travelling around without my horse (and it usually isn't with me). However judging by the fervent outrage by many of the commenters here, they were deeply immersed and did not mind it at all, so maybe it's a preference thing.

Artificial difficulty? The one shots were mostly a minor inconvenience.

Item durability? I hated it at first, but it isn't too bad if you consider equipment to be consumables instead, kinda like gear in Riviera: The promised land. Still a concept I am not fond of.

Lack of Zelda enemies? True, but I would say that's a personal preference and should not lower the overall score of the game.

If it were me, I would give the game a 8.1/10. Nowhere near perfect, but still an exemplary game
 
Also with performance it should be noted that the switch is not tapping into its full power and Zelda team have to a half-decent port that still works (essentially tv mode is barely faster than handheld mode for zelda). At least it looks really good on tv.
 
The main dungeons all consist of the same "find 6 terminals, fight the main boss" in each different beast which is, for the most part, very easy to do.
I did have trouble with the Zora dungeon, but only because I got a little turned around when it came to moving the big elephant trunk
So yeah, it's a little disappointing.
Oh boy you wasn't lying,
Just made it to the Zora dungeon boss.(my first dungeon) The puzzles was nice but it only consisted of a handful of rooms. like the smallest dungeon in Zelda history. speechless
 
There is a clear difference between being "honest" and intentionally contrarian. Everyone knew this review was coming, both inside the professional game journalism industry and elsewhere in the surrounding communities. It's inevitable, so it's no surprise. And in the fashion which it is presented here, it commands absolutely no respect for the writer.

Honest opinions are one thing, and they ought to be respected when properly communicated and constructively scrutinized. But in this case, it could not be more obvious that the writer approached the evaluation of the product with clear intentions of going against the grain no matter the circumstances -- for motives unknown, but nevertheless, it's absolutely palpable. Many (if not most) of the primary criticisms referenced within it are purely subjective, or worse, misleading and exaggerated. It's an absolute hack-job of an article that fortunately will not appear on any reputable outlet, lest an unsuspecting consumer might mistake what has otherwise been nearly-universally proclaimed one of the greatest games ever created for nothing more than another open-world Bethesdaism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: netovsk
There is a clear difference between being "honest" and intentionally contrarian. Everyone knew this review was coming, both inside the professional game journalism industry and elsewhere in the surrounding communities. It's inevitable, so it's no surprise. And in the fashion which it is presented here, it commands absolutely no respect for the writer.

Honest opinions are one thing, and they ought to be respected when properly communicated and constructively scrutinized. But in this case, it could not be more obvious that the writer approached the evaluation of the product with clear intentions of going against the grain no matter the circumstances -- for motives unknown, but nevertheless, it's absolutely palpable. Many (if not most) of the primary criticisms referenced within it are purely subjective, or worse, misleading and exaggerated. It's an absolute hack-job of an article that fortunately will not appear on any reputable outlet, lest an unsuspecting consumer might mistake what has otherwise been nearly-universally proclaimed one of the greatest games ever created for nothing more than another open-world Bethesdaism.
I don't understand why it has to be some kind of a conspiracy. He's not writing to command respect, he's just reviewing a game, and one that he enjoyed - he's just played better and provided *constructive* criticism on how it could've been made better, especially in the weapons department. You're telling me that nobody in all of Hyrule knows how to reforge a broken sword? Are there no actual blacksmiths anymore? And what about Link himself, why can't he do it with his resources? Durability is a fantastic concept, but it needs to be executed correctly - items break, but they should also be fixable until broken beyond repair. The same applies to other aspects Tom touched upon, he's not blowing hot air, he does say how the game could've been better in *his* opinion. This whole ridiculous argument is over a number, and one that isn't low anyways. This is exactly why the idea of completely dumping scores was bounced around, but we ultimately kept them for the sake of participating in metascore engines.
 
I don't understand why it has to be some kind of a conspiracy. He's not writing to command respect, he's just reviewing a game, and one that he enjoyed - he's just played better and provided *constructive* criticism on how it could've been made better, especially in the weapons department. You're telling me that nobody in all of Hyrule knows how to reforge a broken sword? Are there no actual blacksmiths anymore? And what about Link himself, why can't he do it with his resources? Durability is a fantastic concept, but it needs to be executed correctly - items break, but they should also be fixable until broken beyond repair. The same applies to other aspects Tom touched upon, he's not blowing hot air, he does say how the game could've been better in *his* opinion. This whole ridiculous argument is over a number, and one that isn't low anyways. This is exactly why the idea of completely dumping scores was bounced around, but we ultimately kept them for the sake of participating in metascore engines.


How exactly would weapons have been better? Having repairs so he'd complain about not having enough inventory space? Having weapons not break at all and at some point there's no more incentive to find others since they're mostly garbage? Oh wait, to have only a bow or a sword you use against every foe until thumbs are sore?

It's clear to those who actually played the game that lack of weapons is never a problem, the real challenge is carrying them all because there are plenty of them. You gotta measure what you're up against and what weapons to carry and use accordingly. It makes looting always interesting as every weapon can have a use, even if it's breaking ores.

There is no constructive criticism in this review, he doesn't show how the alternatives would be more fun overall it's just plain bickering.
 
How exactly would weapons have been better? Having repairs so he'd complain about not having enough inventory space? Having weapons not break at all and at some point there's no more incentive to find others since they're mostly garbage? Oh wait, to have only a bow or a sword you use against every foe until thumbs are sore?

It's clear to those who actually played the game that lack of weapons is never a problem, the real challenge is carrying them all because there are plenty of them. You gotta measure what you're up against and what weapons to carry and use accordingly. It makes looting always interesting as every weapon can have a use, even if it's breaking ores

It takes away the value of finding a good weapon, as it'll either break soon enough or you'll hoard it waiting for that special fight to use it on and likely end up not using it at all. These aren't even weapons, really. They're consumable items. Which I suppose isn't a bad thing, but not a thing some people are fond of.

As far as the first question goes, there' a lot of ways you could have improved the weapon durability system. For example...
-Have the weapon drop rate significantly reduced
-Be able to dismantle weapons into materials that can repair other weapons
-Increase inventory space in regards to weapons and have it be your main source of rupees (not done with the game myself, as far as I know these could be the main source of rupees at endgame, but this is in regards to inventory clutter that may happen if durability was reworked a bit)
and so forth. Note that these are all ideas with the assumption that weapons would either have much higher durability or there would be a way to repair them.

Some people don't like the consumable item weapon system. Others do. No need to chastise the reviewer or his review just because he doesn't share your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4
It takes away the value of finding a good weapon, as it'll either break soon enough or you'll hoard it waiting for that special fight to use it on and likely end up not using it at all. These aren't even weapons, really. They're consumable items. Which I suppose isn't a bad thing, but not a thing some people are fond of.

As far as the first question goes, there' a lot of ways you could have improved the weapon durability system. For example...
-Have the weapon drop rate significantly reduced
-Be able to dismantle weapons into materials that can repair other weapons
-Increase inventory space in regards to weapons and have it be your main source of rupees (not done with the game myself, as far as I know these could be the main source of rupees at endgame, but this is in regards to inventory clutter that may happen if durability was reworked a bit)
and so forth. Note that these are all ideas with the assumption that weapons would either have much higher durability or there would be a way to repair them.

Some people don't like the consumable item weapon system. Others do. No need to chastise the reviewer or his review just because he doesn't share your opinion.
That's exactly right. The entire system detracts from the value of artifacts - there's no point in looking for rare, powerful weapons if they will break all the same. @netovsk just assumes Tom would bicker either way when the system is legitimately broken and makes no sense in the context of the game world. If a powerful weapon was passed on from generation to generation, it *obviously* saw more combat than just a couple of Bokoblins and *someone* must've done some maintenance on it over the years. There are simple fixes for this problem - just making makeshift weapons permanently breakable and/or dismantable and artifacts that only ever reach "damaged" status and need to be repaired over time with often rare ingredients would add so much to the game. The player would be compelled to explore the world, collect all the legendary weapons, raid shrines to collect resources to maintain them etc., it'd make inventory management meaningful as you would choose ingredients to carry based on weapon preferences and your own gameplay style. Long-life weapons would introduce a possibility to introduce a proficiency system - the player could get more accustomed with weapons and the weapons themselves could level up as they score kills and are reforged, becoming better and better with each iteration. Jesus, I just described an infinitely better system in 5 minutes, it really wasn't that hard to make better than it is, there's so much untapped potential here. Right now you just carry a hundred disposable axes and a few "boss weapons" you leave for a rainy day - that *wouldn't happen* in the real world, in the real world you'd carry two, maybe three weapons (ranged, melee and a sidearm, like a dagger, just in case your main breaks and you need something to quickly defend yourself with), a whetstone and a quiver of arrows or bolts, that's it. There's suspension of disbelief and then there's "busy idiot" style nonsense. It would work *infinitely* better as your hunt for the best weapons would actually matter - you'd be driven to swap your useless paper mache weapons with awesome artifacts, right now they're disposable.
 
That was so sad, although it still a matter of opinions. The mechanics of this game clearly inter-connected to each other.

Weapon Durability - Weapon Attributes and Types - Weathers - Physics and Runes - Crafting and Cooking - Exploration Mechanism

All of this contributes to the immersion of the game, trying to break the negativity of typical open-world setup and most of the curses that holds well with it.

Durability - Forces you to strategize when defeating the enemies, it forces you to always think of a plan. It clearly rewards you for being brilliant and kick you butt when you just button mashing or using the same strategy for different enemies or even situations. It opened up more immersion by forcing you to keep up with all the strategies even in the late game, where even high grade items of weapons breaks or cannot be wield after some time. Late-game actions still feels rewarding because you still have to think of how to deal with the enemies in the most logical way, not one-shot all the enemies after some leveling like some open-world games. Means you can still get fucked up for being lazy in strategizing.

Weapon Attributes and Types, Weathers - Clearly have its round-up balanced mechanism. All weapon types and types have its pros and cons for every situations or enemies. All self-explanatory. It also applies on weathers, where for instance when raining, you simply cannot climb far due to slippery edges, but you can shield boarding better even on most flat terrain. Also the high sounds of rains enables the stealth immersion mode, where your character can become more sneaky when dealing with monsters. Stealth is a great part of games, it is easy to gang kill group of enemies with only sneaking past them. These mechanism also emphasizes the immersion when playing, in more natural-not-disturbing and most logical way unlike some other games.

Physics and Runes - Add up mechanism that were heavily related to the strategies. Not much to say.

Crafting and Cooking - It helps you when things get hard, even some can be called cheating, although not game-breaking. But that is the way how open world games works, being clever adds up to your achievements. This is the easiest way to go when you want to kill OP boss with minimal hearts and stamina.

Exploration Mechanism - This game was designed with an exploration experience in mind. Devs tried hard to make this game as immersive as it can, and this mechanism cannot be conveyed with words. You have to experience it yourself to feel it. And so far it being received well most of the time.

If you hate even one of the mechanics for whatever reasons, well you simply cannot enjoy the game enough.
 
I can't believe people are being so antagonistic against people who like the game.
That's like saying "I hate tomatoes. They are so bad because they taste like tomatoes. Why do people even grow tomatoes? All the food critics who like tomatoes are paid off my tomato farmers."
Are you seriously so full of yourself you can't accept that you don't like a game most people do?
I'm not complaining about the review score. I'm complaining about people in the comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub and farmin
*goes to sleep. Wake up hours later* This has gotten out of hand. First i like to apologize to the staff team of reviewers here as after some careful consideration they get lots of unwanted attention and i see why. I feel bad for people who have to review in general regardless

Seem like any review is inevitably gonna upset someone to this point (See comments) With the ideas that is brought up during reviews is just seem that way. When will the world learn that there is always someone out there who is gonna disagree with you or hate you? There is no satisfying everyone. Some feats are just impossible, and satisfying people with a review score is one of them. I'm sorry that this is one of the many problems here. Someone plays a game, writes about their experience and then gives it a score, someone gonna disagree, and some will agree. That how it works and always will.

Once again, this whole disagreement thing is all based on biased OPINIONS. There is no law or fact that a game "DESERVE" the score individuals give it based on ones experience. Is a opinion driven system that people should realize that is something you may not agree with, and that isn't a reason to argue or be upset. I'm aware there is scumbags in the world, there is people who will probably accept a offer of money to exaggerate how well a game is when is not and yeah is dishonest. Not everyone is like that, sometimes people just do it on thier own cause they wanted to share this experience with others. Those who are brave enough to accept this kind of backlash, i am starting to understand now, the bravery is respected. :ninja:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4
Nice to see an honest review for a change. I'm a HUGE Zelda fanboy, and I LOVE this game! That being said.... its not perfect and doesn't deserve a 10 from every reviewer to so much as utter the title. This game is a HUGE step in the right direction for modern gaming for Nintendo, but when they said they wanted to go back to their roots, they were full of shit. The exploration and open world was amazing, and I am having a blast going through it all, but let's think about what Zelda is as a game. Where are my dungeons? Equipment? No iron boots? No hookshot? No magic? Only 4 "real" dungeons and they feel even shorter than the Majora's Mask ones. There are plenty of shrines, but they are very simple, short, and somewhat tedious. The lack of signature enemies to the series is disappointing as well. There are too many enemies just reskinned based on the region, and not NEARLY enough variety. How is this Zelda?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas83Lin
As much as I love the game, I have to agree with this review.
Don't get me wrong though, I still believe it's a very good Zelda game. Nintendo worked a lot on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sonic Angel Knight
Honestly, I find the people saying "WHUHUH!?!? HOW COULD YOU GIVE THE GREATEST GAME EVER MADE A 7!?!?" and the people saying "FINALLY! WE HAVE A NON-BIASED REVIEWER! NONE OF THOSE OTHER REVIEWERS MATTERS BECAUSE THEY GAVE IT A HIGH SCORE!!!!" equally stupid and illogical, personally, I disagree with a few things in the review but ultimately it's still nice seeing how the game could fall short for people with different preferences than me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QCLasky
Nice to see an honest review for a change. I'm a HUGE Zelda fanboy, and I LOVE this game! That being said.... its not perfect and doesn't deserve a 10 from every reviewer to so much as utter the title. This game is a HUGE step in the right direction for modern gaming for Nintendo, but when they said they wanted to go back to their roots, they were full of shit. The exploration and open world was amazing, and I am having a blast going through it all, but let's think about what Zelda is as a game. Where are my dungeons? Equipment? No iron boots? No hookshot? No magic? Only 4 "real" dungeons and they feel even shorter than the Majora's Mask ones. There are plenty of shrines, but they are very simple, short, and somewhat tedious. The lack of signature enemies to the series is disappointing as well. There are too many enemies just reskinned based on the region, and not NEARLY enough variety. How is this Zelda?
I don't really find Majora's Mask dungeon to be that small, even without time constraint. Lots of clever designs. The shrines could use some improvement though. But this is what we get for non-linear progression and just wait for dlc I guess.
 
100+ hours played.
300+ Korok seeds.
~90 Shrines done.
Destroying all enemies.
Never running out of weapons.
Still holding off on beating the final boss.
Only about 40-45% done with a comprehensive exploration...

As for everything killing you, you're too used to easy games. Early game was some of the best gameplay I've had in a long while. So many different ways to approach the game as I learned it, and so much joy in the discovery of various things. Now that I'm 'overgeared', even with the Silver enemies (that render my Wolf Link completely useless now, so that's one complaint...) spawning everywhere, it's mostly about just enjoying the world and exploring and finding all the fun ways they utilize the Koroks and stuff.

I think really, you have to view this as a bit of an MMO like, say, the original World of Warcraft gameplay or something. Back when I played that, I found as much joy at climbing random hills and being 'clever' as I did in the dungeons or combat or quests. It all just comes together to be something that satisfies the exploration. And yes, any game you play for over 100 hours will start to feel repetitive, you just have to find satisfaction in other elements, or, I dunno, take a break once in a while.
 
I am more than 20 hours into the game and i can wholeheartedly agree with the review.

I am all for change and all for open worlds and all for breaking weapons and what not. The problem here is that Nintendo is doing this for the first time, while other game studios have been doing these for years. It is obvious that when you do something for the first time, you are not going to provide the best results.

It is a fine game, just with serious flaws. Weapons break at 4-5 hits! This is not adding any enthusiasm, it is just artificial difficulty. Go and buy any blunt hard metal object and hit anything 5 times. Is it broken? No. The game is trying to hard to put artificial limits on you. Having a stamina meter that does not allow you to climb forever when starting out is fine. Breaking weapons after only 4-5 strikes is ridiculous, i have to literally equip a new weapon in EVERY SINGLE fight that consists of more than 1 or 2 enemies. Is this seriously how damage based realism should be done?

The game goes a long way to simulate a real open world, however, it is not at all realistic in other matters such as weapon damage, environments (you would expect different enemies in different climates/heights etc).

I also miss staples of zelda games. Classic tools (hookshot, boomerang etc) and dungeons! Dungeons used to be a thing of excitement, with puzzles to solve etc.

In my opinion, this is not a real Zelda game. In the same sense that spirit tracks or phantom hourglass are not. They abolish too much of the Zelda gameplay and this is fine, however all the aspects that are new to Zelda have been done before, many times and as such, in a better fashion. For me, it feels like i am playing a mashup of Assassins Creed/Far Cry/Witcher. There is nothing apparently bad about this, however it is not perfected at all. I am sure it will get better with updates and DLC but initial thoughts are like this.

At the end of the day, most Nintendo only gamers have not played many of the non Nintendo-platform released games and it is obviously a step in a new direction. But for people who have been playing multi-platform for more than 2-3 years we have seen all of the above "new" mechanics to other games done better.

You want better open world, more lively and less barren? Easy, AC, Just Cause, GTA, Middle Earth.

You want better damage control/repairs done right? Witcher, Dying Light (there are more but these are from the top of my head)

I love the small details though such as being harder to climb in rain etc. The game needs refinement. It is on the right track but needs either to harden the weapons up a lot and allow for repairs, liven up the world a bit (i can easily walk around, hell, run around for 10 minutes without finding absolutely ANYTHING).

A fine first try, now let's see them fix things with updates. Let's see them use their digital distribution strategy for something more than milking DLCs.

Definitely not GOTY in its current state. If it wins it, it will be because it is Zelda. Yes, there is a Zelda bias. Much like there is a Mario bias, an Uncharted bias, a Halo bias etc. People are biased when interviewing their favourite games. Personally i think Halo is 100% crap too. Still, people love it!
 
-OK. There are cons to this games, but hell, no. You don't give BOTW the same grade as Sonic:Lost World. You don't give it almost the samle as Sun/Moon. That's ridiculous. At least, the Metacritic grade is an accurate one. It is the average of dozens of different reviewers who played it, and gave it a 9-10.
 
Metacritic an accurate average? They themselves say it is not
http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores

"Metascore is a weighted average in that we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others, based on their quality and overall stature. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together."
Said weighting it unknown as well.

Also as stated before the grading only has to be accurate to the reviewer that wrote it, and I am prepared to take their writing at face value for being a value that they assign. Publication wide is hard, and I would argue pointless, to pursue.
 
Bottom line is that yes, you guys need to remove scores from your reviews. Scores are a potentially dangerous venture unless they are used responsibly... I should know personally, because I have been paid (by reviewing outlets, not companies providing products) to professionally review products for over 15 years now.

The primary problem here remains that the reviewer sounds absolutely driven by contrarianism in this review and provides primarily subjective quibbles to support his complaints ("it's not Zelda!", followed by "but it won't be getting a perfect score from me because Zelda"). But that's all compounded by the fact that he knowingly lobbed a virtual grenade into the industry by dropping a 7.0 on what is -- once again -- widely considered by literally every other professional outlet (every one of them!) to be possibly one of the greatest videogames ever produced. You see, when you decide to take that leap, you have to also be fully prepared to 1) substantiate your complaints with valid and thoroughly-vetted specific evidence and 2) defend your score against the uprising of (many rational) critics who won't believe what they are reading.

If you can't do that, you wind up where we are here today: in a situation where everything explodes, reputations crumble, and eventually everyone on the defense starts closing doors and yelling from the other side "BUT IT'S JUST AN OPINION! IT'S SUBJECTIVE! HE CAN SAY WHATEVER HE WANTS! DON'T YOU KNOW HOW REVIEWS WORK?!"

Counterproductive at best... this is not the proper way to try to make your mark on history. For that reason alone, removing scores once again from reviews would save you the trouble of having any exposure from meta sites such as OpenCritic -- because while the attention and traffic may seem nice, it's a tiny percentage of people who would consider this sort of writing constructive in any fashion. This is BAD exposure.

Take it from a reviewer of 15+ years.
 
I would go the other way. By having scores here it could help devalue the notion of them, and that is a good thing from where I sit -- scores as a concept are not a great metric for much owing to being so imprecise.

You say contrarianism, I say deliberate critique. A record of the fun you had and where you had it can work, a list of things you found to be weak in a work, possibly having deliberately sought them out, that otherwise comes together well enough is another and what I seek in such things. I don't know if I would have reviewed it in the same way but it would not have been unrecognisably different, and from what I have played (not a lot at all) I can see the things mentioned in the review coming to pass and playing out as such.

I don't see a note that it moves away from certain established conventions within a long established franchise to be logically dissonant with floating a notion that because it is Zelda some measure of objectivity might have been lost elsewhere and you are striving to avoid that.

I am certainly not above the reviewer equivalent of flamebait, mainly as I find such things to be highly amusing. To accuse people of clickbait or famewhoring of a sort is a bigger charge and one I am going to have to invite you to substantiate. Meta review sites always feel a bit hollow to me but it seems to be part of the game, or at least a type of cheap, targeted advertising, so meh.

You say products and that is great, I do it too (in my case clients say here is £1000, here is what I need something to do, buy all the offerings on the market and then run them into the ground before telling me the results) though I maintain professional or not matters little in the face of the contents of a thing (right is right, physics is physics though and physics cares little for your qualifications). If the drill in front of me does not spin at the rpms it says it does (or the task calls for), for the duty cycle it requires/says it can/relative to competition and in a safe manner I can say as such. Entertainment is rather more hard to quantify, almost to the point where it almost necessitates a more touchy-feely approach.
 
You want better open world, more lively and less barren? Easy, AC, Just Cause, GTA, Middle Earth.

I fail to see how BotW is a less lively & barren open world than any game in the Just Cause series, a franchise I would describe as having some of the most barren and bland open world design in gaming.
 
I need to play this game already in order to get my own review of it.
I kind of hate your reviews Tom, not because they are bad, but because they are hurtfully accurate (albeit a bit exaggerated). They feel like a witty troll.
I hated your (exaggerated) but accurate FFXV review, then after finishing the game I felt like you were right in almost every point, that kind of made me hate the review even more.
Now I fear you are right again... Yeah, a witty troll.
 
List of problems with this game.
  • EVERYTHING BREAKS (Weapons, bows, shields to be more specific)
  • STAMINA (I ******** Hate it)
  • YOU NEED STAMINA FOR EVERYTHING (Swimming, climbing and paragliding)
  • NO ZELDA SERIES ITEMS (Besides bombs, no hookshot, zora flippers, dash boots or something to mover faster, also no magic at all.)
  • ADDING DEFENSE SYSTEM (Had enough one hit kills, cause i need ARMOR)
  • ADDING ATTACK SYSTEM
  • LIMITED ITEM STORAGE (Item management is the best idea ever invented for a video game. For this zelda game it upsets me. Give me one weapon, shield, and bow that doesn't break, i don't care if is lowest attack, i'll be happy.)
  • WEATHER EFFECTS (Rain makes it hard to climb rocks WHICH YOU DO A LOT OF IN THIS GAME. Random thunder storms, FORCED TO UNEQUIP SPECIFIC WEAPONS TO AVOID THUNDER SHOCKS. Hot and cold is a issue? This game is too realistic, Is a video game, not real life.)
  • SHRINES (having to do so many of them to get a heart or stamina upgrade..... words end here, there is no more words for this statement.)
  • RUPEES (WHERE ARE THEY? My point is so hard to find any, having money issues in zelda is now another level of difficulty. Especially if "SPOILER" YOU NEED IT AS PART OF MAIN STORY AND SIDE QUEST)
Look is just my problems with the game, if these was not so trivial to making this difficult, I be able to enjoy it. Is like most of what make Zelda good game series is taken away and slapped with Dark souls difficulty on it, and i am no means a fan of this series, to be clear. I play a few games i enjoy some and dislike some.

Simply put, if i had stuff that don't break, no stamina, easier way to tavel especially swimming, and climbing walls, and doing it fast (maybe flying) no concern with weather conditions, and other few things i would feel bit more positive about it. But since some broken discoveries are made i can cope with it eventually. :blink:
you arent serious right?
 
I hope hard mode actually involves more aggressive AI, large group of enemies that cooperate better and some classic enemies that have a unique pattern. How about those flying lizards in Tri-force Heroes?
 
100+ hours played.
300+ Korok seeds.
~90 Shrines done.
Destroying all enemies.
Never running out of weapons.
Still holding off on beating the final boss.
Only about 40-45% done with a comprehensive exploration...

As for everything killing you, you're too used to easy games. Early game was some of the best gameplay I've had in a long while. So many different ways to approach the game as I learned it, and so much joy in the discovery of various things. Now that I'm 'overgeared', even with the Silver enemies (that render my Wolf Link completely useless now, so that's one complaint...) spawning everywhere, it's mostly about just enjoying the world and exploring and finding all the fun ways they utilize the Koroks and stuff.

I think really, you have to view this as a bit of an MMO like, say, the original World of Warcraft gameplay or something. Back when I played that, I found as much joy at climbing random hills and being 'clever' as I did in the dungeons or combat or quests. It all just comes together to be something that satisfies the exploration. And yes, any game you play for over 100 hours will start to feel repetitive, you just have to find satisfaction in other elements, or, I dunno, take a break once in a while.


The guy gave Dark Souls 3 a 9, obvious stong enemies should not be an issue for him.
 
I fail to see how BotW is a less lively & barren open world than any game in the Just Cause series, a franchise I would describe as having some of the most barren and bland open world design in gaming.

Yes, i understand why it sounds opposite to what i am supposed to say. However, what i am meaning to say, is that there is always something to do, see or look around. People driving, things to pick up, cars or vehicles to hijack etc. It is not perfect either. Just not big for being big!

The fact that i am comparing it to this, should be a hint. I do not consider it a perfect open world game, however, for the purpose it fulfils, it is fine. In Zelda it is just *too* empty!!!

2 mobs with 2 crates between kakariko village and the next village (whatever the name is) while running for 15 minutes between them is not lively, or full!
 
And people, please, when you visit Metacritic, look at the USER SCORES TOO, just looking at what magazines and websites said is only a handful or people. Just go and see how the 98% turnes to 76%.

Just as everything else in life, be prepared to hear the other side of a story on divisive decisions.

Nintendo took some extreme liberties here by literally changing the game completely. What did you expect? That everybody will like it? I did not expect a 1:1 zelda experience, however if i knew what i was preordering, i simply would not. I am 15 hours into the game and already avoiding battles because i know it is going to be a switchfest of weapons to kill 3-5 enemies. They took this thing to a new extreme. What is wrong with the whole idea of degrading normally rather than in fast track? What is wrong with a smaller world, yet still quite large, that is not too barren?

Somehow, nintendo fans will shout at you "who cares for graphics" but when a statement like "it is 12 times the size of skyrim", pants get wet? Much as you do not care about graphics, i do not care about map size. Ocarina of time has a fart of a map compared to this, yet i enjoy it more.

Accept there is another opinion, whatever it was that made Zelda a favourite just is not here for many people. This is a fine game, but it is not the Zelda game i was waiting for. Perhaps i should be more careful knowning Nintendo anymore, but as a blind idiotic nintendo fan myself, without any real sense of control, i bought the console just to play this game (although i could play it perfectly on the WiiU) just to find out that half of the game mechanics suck big time (for me, always).

Bring on Mario please!
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-hug
I need to play this game already in order to get my own review of it.
I kind of hate your reviews Tom, not because they are bad, but because they are hurtfully accurate (albeit a bit exaggerated). They feel like a witty troll.
I hated your (exaggerated) but accurate FFXV review, then after finishing the game I felt like you were right in almost every point, that kind of made me hate the review even more.
Now I fear you are right again... Yeah, a witty troll.
In all honesty, I've beaten the game and I completely agree with his points. I don't think that there is any exaggeration in there, if anything I think he was a little soft on the game. Aesthetically a lot of it is very much the same (shrines are blue tron-lined rooms, and the 'dungeons' (as much as they can be called that) are this sandstone/gold rooms without anything to set them apart from each other (ie when you're inside there's no distinct Zora/Gerudo/Goron/Rito setting, it just looks very similar)) so most of it (and by it I mean the dungeons/shrines/bosses) is short and utterly forgettable. Hell, even Hyrule Castle can be pathetically short.
You can seriously go around the castle, jump/swim across the moat once you're at the back of the castle and climb all the way to the top. Completely avoiding any confrontation until you get to Ganon itself.
As for the difficulty, it pretty much only comes from how much damage the enemies do, rather than actually difficult enemies. Most of the moves they do are so telegraphed it's easy to avoid, and flurry rush just means free attacks most of the time. (I'm not gonna lie, I showed off the final boss of the game to my family, and even they were like "Wait that's it?").
So yeah, While I still think it's a good game (I'm still impressed by the lack of loading screens, pretty much the only times you'll see them are when you're entering a shrine or dungeon, or you die) , it's really not the amazing thing everyone wants it to be. It certainly has its good points (although I barely touched on those, simply because everyone else has already talked about them), but it also has flaws, some of which are easier to forgive than others (the barely there story is not much of an issue, but the length/aesthetics of the dungeons are harder for me to take).
 
In all honesty, I've beaten the game and I completely agree with his points. I don't think that there is any exaggeration in there, if anything I think he was a little soft on the game. Aesthetically a lot of it is very much the same (shrines are blue tron-lined rooms, and the 'dungeons' (as much as they can be called that) are this sandstone/gold rooms without anything to set them apart from each other (ie when you're inside there's no distinct Zora/Gerudo/Goron/Rito setting, it just looks very similar)) so most of it (and by it I mean the dungeons/shrines/bosses) is short and utterly forgettable. Hell, even Hyrule Castle can be pathetically short.
You can seriously go around the castle, jump/swim across the moat once you're at the back of the castle and climb all the way to the top. Completely avoiding any confrontation until you get to Ganon itself.
As for the difficulty, it pretty much only comes from how much damage the enemies do, rather than actually difficult enemies. Most of the moves they do are so telegraphed it's easy to avoid, and flurry rush just means free attacks most of the time. (I'm not gonna lie, I showed off the final boss of the game to my family, and even they were like "Wait that's it?").
So yeah, While I still think it's a good game (I'm still impressed by the lack of loading screens, pretty much the only times you'll see them are when you're entering a shrine or dungeon, or you die) , it's really not the amazing thing everyone wants it to be. It certainly has its good points (although I barely touched on those, simply because everyone else has already talked about them), but it also has flaws, some of which are easier to forgive than others (the barely there story is not much of an issue, but the length/aesthetics of the dungeons are harder for me to take).
Oh well, I really want to try it and now I believe it is not worth waiting I can get my hands on a Switch.
I suppose I will get it on my Wii U.
 
And people, please, when you visit Metacritic, look at the USER SCORES TOO, just looking at what magazines and websites said is only a handful or people. Just go and see how the 98% turnes to 76%.
You have got to be joking. The user score average on Metacritic is absolutely vapid. Take a look at how many of those negative scores were 0/10 -- and compare that across the board with the other tiers:

Positive: 1,227 out of 1541
Mixed: 69 out of 1541
Negative: 245

What does this tell you? Obviously that (for whatever asinine reason) people are simply coming in and voting 0/10 for the game to voice their discontent with Nintendo or some other phantom scapegoat in the teenage console wars phenomenon. It's not legitimate criticism.

People who have sunk 90+ hours into Breath of the Wild (read: professional reviewers) can agree on one thing across the board: it's uncommonly terrific. I should remind you once more that out of the 70+ outlets that have posted scores thus far for it, not a single one of them has scored it anything below a 9. Do you realize how absolutely insane that is?

Not until now, of course. Because remember, Mr. Bond here is the sole voice of honesty in this industry. The shining white knight on his steed, coming to lead the people away from the tyranny of the conditionally-biased gaming press, all of whom (all 70+ of them) apparently were blinded by the majesty of the Zelda brand and therefore unable to rationally process its positives and negatives. Mr. Bond is the sole exception to this pool of incompetent sheep.

This game is a masterpiece. This review is quite the opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nando
Oh well, I really want to try it and now I believe it is not worth waiting I can get my hands on a Switch.
I suppose I will get it on my Wii U.
Honestly, you should try it. I mean, just because I didn't like it as much, doesn't mean you won't. I'm just a bit bitter because I just blew 580 euros(I bought a Switch for this game, and bought the game three times, once for the WiiU and both the special and normal editions for the Switch. Granted I'll still enjoy my Switch, but this was the main reason for me to be an early adopter.) for a game that, in all honesty, kind of dissapointed me
 
  • Like
Reactions: geodeath
You have got to be joking. The user score average on Metacritic is absolutely vapid. Take a look at how many of those negative scores were 0/10 -- and compare that across the board with the other tiers:

Positive: 1,227 out of 1541
Mixed: 69 out of 1541
Negative: 245

What does this tell you? Obviously that (for whatever asinine reason) people are simply coming in and voting 0/10 for the game to voice their discontent with Nintendo or some other phantom scapegoat in the teenage console wars phenomenon. It's not legitimate criticism.

People who have sunk 90+ hours into Breath of the Wild (read: professional reviewers) can agree on one thing across the board: it's uncommonly terrific. I should remind you once more that out of the 70+ outlets that have posted scores thus far for it, not a single one of them has scored it anything below a 9. Do you realize how absolutely insane that is?

Not until now, of course. Because remember, Mr. Bond here is the sole voice of honesty in this industry. The shining white knight on his steed, coming to lead the people away from the tyranny of the conditionally-biased gaming press, all of whom (all 70+ of them) apparently were blinded by the majesty of the Zelda brand and therefore unable to rationally process its positives and negatives. Mr. Bond is the sole exception to this pool of incompetent sheep.

This game is a masterpiece. This review is quite the opposite.


You are taking what i say completely literally. Do not just look at the score produced by the crybabies who scored it 0. I scored it too and it was not a zero.

Do put the effort to see some of the non zero and non 10 reviews and you will see mirroring comments to this review. This is what i meant.

And no, i am not joking. I am happy for whoever is feeling it is the best game eva, but yeah, not happening for me and i feel there are loads more people who feel like that.

I am happy it works for you but it does not work for me. And in metacritic, if you forget about the 0 but read the actual reviews, you will see the same remarks done here.

As for if it is uncommonly terrific or not... who tells me what else these people have played/enjoyed? Is it too much now to consider some of them not having experienced what i did, simply because they are reviewers? Do reviewers (even professional) have time to play everything?

I just happen to have played a mix of games that did parts of what zelda is trying to do before and i feel zelda is not better or even up there in those parts. Simple.

To each his own. Same goes for Halo. Critics really love Halo. I hate it. I think it is the most mundane fps ever.
 
You have got to be joking. The user score average on Metacritic is absolutely vapid. Take a look at how many of those negative scores were 0/10 -- and compare that across the board with the other tiers:

Positive: 1,227 out of 1541
Mixed: 69 out of 1541
Negative: 245

What does this tell you? Obviously that (for whatever asinine reason) people are simply coming in and voting 0/10 for the game to voice their discontent with Nintendo or some other phantom scapegoat in the teenage console wars phenomenon. It's not legitimate criticism.

People who have sunk 90+ hours into Breath of the Wild (read: professional reviewers) can agree on one thing across the board: it's uncommonly terrific. I should remind you once more that out of the 70+ outlets that have posted scores thus far for it, not a single one of them has scored it anything below a 9. Do you realize how absolutely insane that is?

Not until now, of course. Because remember, Mr. Bond here is the sole voice of honesty in this industry. The shining white knight on his steed, coming to lead the people away from the tyranny of the conditionally-biased gaming press, all of whom (all 70+ of them) apparently were blinded by the majesty of the Zelda brand and therefore unable to rationally process its positives and negatives. Mr. Bond is the sole exception to this pool of incompetent sheep.

This game is a masterpiece. This review is quite the opposite.

Look at this list please. These are the top of the tops ever released on any platform. Do you really agree with number 2 of all time being Tony Hawk? Number 5 being Soul Calibur? Number 12 and 13 Tony Hawk again? Number 18 Halo 1????

2. 98 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (PS) User: 7.5

5. 98 SoulCalibur (DC) User: 8.8

12. 97 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (DC) User: 6.7

13. 97 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 (PS2) User: 7.4

18. 97 Halo: Combat Evolved (XBOX) User: 8.6

19. 97 NFL 2K1 (DC)

So, we either have to agree that everybody has an opinion (you know how the saying goes) or we have to agree that metacritic's critic scores are the single point of truth for all games. (there are the user scores next to the games too.. universally acclaimed games tend to match critics with users).

If we are to say that this is a masterpiece because "metacritic says so" then we have to agree that Tony Hawk on the playstation 1 is a better game than Breath of the Wild.

I think you can see what is wrong in that assumption there? If we simply agree that whatever metacritic says should be taken as the bible of gaming scores, then sorry, but you should better play Tony Hawk! The reality is between the 2 ratings and the actual reviews from both people scoring high and not. :)
 
Oh well, I really want to try it and now I believe it is not worth waiting I can get my hands on a Switch.
I suppose I will get it on my Wii U.

You should definitely try it. Or at least watch videos where all these things are shown in details. Then you might have a better understanding if you want to make sure these are not serious shortcomings for you.
 
You guys must remember that this is just a review. By one reviewer. If this is a 7/10 in his opinion, it is, and there's nothing you can do about it. Knowing the reviewer is key when reading reviews.
I see what Tom's saying, but I don't agree with some of the complaints from playing it myself. In his opinion the world is empty, while in my opinion it's grand and vast... I enjoy the emptiness (and it's really not that empty in my opinion). More enemy types would be nice, especially when there's a lot of enemies from earlier games to take into consideration. I would actually love to see enemies fighting among each other: Lizalfos vs. Moblin, Keese attacking some spider enemy for food. Just like some enemies are hunting wild life now.
One enemy that I've always hated would actually fit into the game series for the very first time now: Like Likes. Now that shields are so dispensable, they could eat your shield and it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world :P

Oh well, back to the subject on hand: If I hadn't played the game myself, I wouldn't just listen to ONE review, I would check out several. I see the complaints, I think for myself if those complaints are something that matter to me. If I know (about) the reviewer, do we have the same taste?
Just like some music reviewers out there that I enjoy listening to, TheNeedleDrop for one: I know what he likes and dislikes, and I know that our taste isn't exactly the same. When he reviews one genre and dislikes some parts (while actually saying why he doesn't like it), I can take that information to me and get the feeling that "Hey, that's what I like though!" and become interested in it.

Nobody will even care about this text, especially those who'd need it.
 
I probably am 10 hours in, and will likely be 10 hours in next month as well... The game has literally zero draw for me. 7/10 is in my opinion generous...

I guess this game would appeal to some one who hasn't played FarCry 1-4 or Skyrim or Oblivion or GTA III/IV/V or World of Warcraft or an actually well done open world game. Having been a PC/Console gamer since the late 70's I have seen a lot of things, played a lot of great games and a lot of garbage. This game is kind of in the middle for me. Time has a lot to do with how something should be scored... that whole innovation thing. Had BOTW been released on the GameCube it would have been an 11/10 nothing else out there would compare. Coming out many years later, after there have been much better examples of the genre? No not a 10 not even close, not a 9 not an 8 for the love of god 7 is being generous.

I wanted to like it, as some one who bought 2 Wii-U's at launch (yes 2...) I really wanted something to enjoy on the system. Thankfully at least the Mario games are as good as ever and I can play them and be happy.
 
@geodeath:

The argument is not that metacritic is the Bible of all gaming reviews compendiums or the final word on anything. It is, rather, that when 70+ professionals all come to a consensus that -- objectively-speaking, as much as possible -- a game is one of the greatest they have ever had the pleasure of evaluating, it is beyond suspect when a single reviewer trots along (inflammatory rhetoric notwithstanding -- which, by the way, absolutely exists throughout this entire review) and condemns the game to a middling, unremarkable, absolutely pedestrian score of 7/10 -- 22% below any other score previously assigned to it.

~76+ professional reviewers (many of which with rational, expertly worded, level-headed articles): 90+% (average: 98%)
1 individual (openly flaunting his contrarianism, combative in his tone, gloating over his criticisms): 70%

I don't care how you interpret the role of Metacritic or any other repository for review scores of products. The bottom line is that Mr. Bond's review is an outlier, and it's not even a well-defended or well-communicated one. It's presented as an intentional kick in the crotch, and although likely (fortunately) no one is going to take it seriously, it still is a black mark on the history of what otherwise is a magnificent achievement by all other (objective) accounts from people who evaluate such products professionally.

Look, I'll say it again: I, more than anyone, should be able to accept and embrace dissenting opinions over the quality of a product. This is, after all, the sole purpose of professional product reviews to begin with, and it's why I get paid to do what I do. But there is a line between objective evaluative criteria (with some inevitable subjective squabbles tossed in) and unfounded bitching and moaning over a product -- and having sunk dozens of hours into this game myself, it could not be more obvious just why it is that people are so up in arms over the foolishness of this particular article.
 
Tom you monster ! why dont you think of the children?
He does, his profile picture is a clown, kids like clowns right? :creep:

Seriously, My concern isn't the score, since the score is very flexible, i mean if it was like maybe automatic like (Insert score for each category) then it does a final score system based on the values entered that be nice. Maybe inaccurate, but i mean if you can say 0 presentation, 0 gameplay 0 lasting appeal and 10 overall, is just funny. :P

Number system is maybe a visual representation of how to simply the summary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psionic Roshambo
@geodeath:

The argument is not that metacritic is the Bible of all gaming reviews compendiums or the final word on anything. It is, rather, that when 70+ professionals all come to a consensus that -- objectively-speaking, as much as possible -- a game is one of the greatest they have ever had the pleasure of evaluating, it is beyond suspect when a single reviewer trots along (inflammatory rhetoric notwithstanding -- which, by the way, absolutely exists throughout this entire review) and condemns the game to a middling, unremarkable, absolutely pedestrian score of 7/10 -- 22% below any other score previously assigned to it.

~76+ professional reviewers (many of which with rational, expertly worded, level-headed articles): 90+% (average: 98%)
1 individual (openly flaunting his contrarianism, combative in his tone, gloating over his criticisms magnanimously): 70%

I don't care how you interpret the role of Metacritic or any other repository for review scores of products. The bottom line is that Mr. Bond's review is an outlier, and it's not even a well-defended or well-communicated one. It's presented as an intentional kick in the crotch, and although likely (fortunately) no one is going to take it seriously, it still is a black mark on the history of what otherwise is a magnificent achievement by all other (objective) accounts from people who evaluate such products professionally.

Look, I'll say it again: I, more than anyone, should be able to accept and embrace dissenting opinions over the quality of a product. This is, after all, the sole purpose of professional product reviews to begin with, and it's why I get paid to do what I do. But there is a line between objective evaluative criteria (with some inevitable subjective squabbles tossed in) and unfounded bitching and moaning over a product -- and having sunk dozens of hours into this game myself, it could not be more obvious just why it is that people are so up in arms over the foolishness of this particular article.

I've looked at all your comments so far and you don't actually make any argument based on the review. You use only authority arguments.
You're coating it in nice flowery language, but all you say is:"so many other reviewers say it's perfect, so give it a perfect score and stop being critical".
The most laughable to me is that you say you're a professional reviewer, yet you're complaining and going on a crusade because of a score. Not the actual review. Just a silly number.
It's completely possible for two different reviewers who enjoyed the game equally, made similar positive and negative points to give a game a different score. Just because the way they translate their appreciation and the quality of something into a mere number is different.
I'd very much like to see what you've actually reviewed, because if your idea of reviewing is simply copying what most "competent" say, I'd rather stay away from those reviews. :P
 
You have got to be joking. The user score average on Metacritic is absolutely vapid. Take a look at how many of those negative scores were 0/10 -- and compare that across the board with the other tiers:

Positive: 1,227 out of 1541
Mixed: 69 out of 1541
Negative: 245

What does this tell you? Obviously that (for whatever asinine reason) people are simply coming in and voting 0/10 for the game to voice their discontent with Nintendo or some other phantom scapegoat in the teenage console wars phenomenon. It's not legitimate criticism.

People who have sunk 90+ hours into Breath of the Wild (read: professional reviewers) can agree on one thing across the board: it's uncommonly terrific. I should remind you once more that out of the 70+ outlets that have posted scores thus far for it, not a single one of them has scored it anything below a 9. Do you realize how absolutely insane that is?

Not until now, of course. Because remember, Mr. Bond here is the sole voice of honesty in this industry. The shining white knight on his steed, coming to lead the people away from the tyranny of the conditionally-biased gaming press, all of whom (all 70+ of them) apparently were blinded by the majesty of the Zelda brand and therefore unable to rationally process its positives and negatives. Mr. Bond is the sole exception to this pool of incompetent sheep.

This game is a masterpiece. This review is quite the opposite.
There are also people who give 10/10 just like that. The 10/10 and 0/10 cancel each other out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psionic Roshambo
You should definitely try it. Or at least watch videos where all these things are shown in details. Then you might have a better understanding if you want to make sure these are not serious shortcomings for you.
I was lucky enough to find a Switch on stock an hour ago, it lies now by my side while I wait my Zelda copy to arrive. So I will try it myself (and I hope I like it, but meh)
 
I was lucky enough to find a Switch on stock an hour ago, it lies now by my side while I wait my Zelda copy to arrive. So I will try it myself (and I hope I like it, but meh)
When you are done with Zelda, give blaster master zero a try, is on the store now as of today (at least in usa) so i recommend it if you like Metroid-castlevania based game. If i was reviewing it, my statement would be "Rebooting the series with a mix of Mega man x" :P

Is made by inticreates, the people who been making mega man games since like 2001... hey that is 15 YEARS. OKAY COOL. ^_^

I will give it a perfect zero just to see how many people actually read the review and not just look at the score. Please, the score is pointless, the text is the important part. :teach:
 
  • Like
Reactions: sarkwalvein
A 7/10, I must say that I agree with the cons for sure, not to mention the weapon durability gets old real fast, it feels like busy work to climb, teleport, and find the same weapons!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sonic Angel Knight
There are also people who give 10/10 just like that. The 10/10 and 0/10 cancel each other out.

Yeah it's not a 0 and it's not a 10, I would discount those two scores of this game out of hand. Here is what a 10 out 10 game should be at least in part. According to IGN...

"10.0 - MASTERPIECE
Simply put: this is our highest recommendation. There’s no such thing as a truly perfect game, but those that earn a Masterpiece label from IGN come as close as we could reasonably hope for. These are classics in the making that we hope and expect will influence game design for years to come, as other developers learn from their shining examples.

Examples: Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, The Last of Us, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto V"

The new Zelda isn't going to influence game design for years to come, it was influenced by games in years past.

This is what a 7 looks like according to IGN,

"7.0-7.9 - GOOD
Playing a Good game is time well spent. Could it be better? Absolutely. Maybe it lacks ambition, is too repetitive, has a few technical bumps in the road, or is too repetitive, but we came away from it happy nonetheless. We think you will, too.

Example: Destiny, Until Dawn, LEGO Jurassic World, Tearaway Unfolded "

Hmmm that looks like Tom's opinion.

http://www.ign.com/wikis/ign/Game_Reviews <--- Source.

What bumps it down a few notches in my opinion is I expect more from Nintendo, not less.
 
A 7/10, I must say that I agree with the cons for sure, not to mention the weapon durability gets old real fast, it feels like busy work to climb, teleport, and find the same weapons!
I think the problem is too realistic, for a fantasy game. It just sound wrong thinking about it. :P

I know the game is big, open and very much about exploring but making simple things like the most important goal of the game very difficult seem to be done wrong. A hookshot would be perfect, no breaking weapons. (Remind me of that cheap goron knife that breaks in ocarina of time for 500 rupees) I don't mind the bunch of stuff, but i never had problem with item management in zelda before, or making money which both seem tedious. One weapon that doesn't break and i'll do any ridiculous task you want me to. No weather conditions, no body heat or cold problems, no thunder storms O_O

I hope mario oddesy isn't as realistic as this game, i might actually pass on it, and i never pass on a mario game. :ninja:
 
I don't write these replies as a product reviewer; the point of mentioning that is simply to prove that there are those of us who do this professionally who are fully aware of what separates a successful review from a vapid and reputationally-damaging one.

And I can't believe I'm about to do this, but precisely because someone earlier called me out for being insubstantial in my criticisms of this review, here are my quick responses to all of the major criticisms in this review:


"In Breath of the Wild, virtually everything will just straight up kill you if you don't manage to kill it first."

This isn't even remotely true. BotW isn't even all that challenging of a game in many cases, and while I've seen plenty of Game Overs during my time with it, for a person who's spent any appreciable amount of time with Dark Souls, Zelda is a relative cakewalk. Fairness does not apply; the game does indeed guide you somewhat away from areas which are currently beyond your reach using immediately tougher enemies, but the rewards are in turn substantially greater for those who choose to try and survive those areas. It is a risk/reward equation and it works extremely well by most accounts.


"Another mechanic is the re-introduction of weapon/shield durability, and let me just start off by saying it's easily the worst gameplay mechanic Nintendo has put in the game, and I hope whomever made the decision to make it so awful was fired."

Weapon durability is inconvenient by design, just like weather systems, time of day constraints, topology... heck, everything which is challenging could be construed as inconvenient or "the worst gameplay mechanic" based on the subjective criteria applied here in this criticism. The truth is, however, it serves an extremely valuable purpose in this game by coaxing the player to actively and consciously manage their equipment, as well as preserve better items in anticipation of tougher encounters down the road. It's fun because it's challenging.

Furthermore, I can honestly say that there has not been a single incident beyond the first four to five hours of play where I was in need of a weapon to proceed further. The game literally throws them at your feet after every encounter, and because of that, weapon durability in this game is really less of a stumbling block and more of a source of variety, so you can't simply Master Sword yourself to victory for the rest of the last 100 hours of the game once you happen to stumble upon it.

This is an absolutely insubstantial and short-sighted criticism which fails to consider the alternative of NOT implementing any sort of limiting mechanics regarding weapons usage.


"it’s a terrible open world. The biggest problem is that it’s just so empty and lifeless. Practically nothing is going on in at least 80+% of the entire map"

Again, this is the polar opposite of what pretty much every other reviewer has said, and I couldn't disagree more myself. The game world in Zelda feels more alive than it does in any other open-world game I have played to date, in part because of the empty spaces. This is to say, it is balanced. It isn't all action, it isn't all crowded, though there is plenty of that to be had in various places throughout the adventure. But as evidenced by its minimalist overworld soundtrack, BotW is a game which is about the atmosphere... and that atmosphere is intoxicating and stunningly believable once you dive into it for a few hours.


"there are 120 of these [shrines] and most of them are really simple puzzles that take maybe a minute or two to go through"

And plenty of others are a series of multiple rooms that can take as long as twenty minutes to solve.

Again, it's all a matter of balance, which is something this game clearly strives to master, and it does mostly master it -- more so than any other open-world game to date arguably.

Consider what is incentivized in a game. What is your incentive? In most open-world games, combat and quest completion are the two items which are rewarded, generally for EXP or some rough equivalent. Zelda diverges from this approach and instead chooses to reward specifically exploration. This is because the game knows its strength is in the richness of the game world itself.

It does so by rewarding the location (and/or completion of) A. shrines (trade for heart containers and stamina upgrades), B. Great Fairy Fountains (upgrade equipment), C. Treasure chests and equivalent bonuses, and D. Korok Seeds (inventory expansion). It is a brilliant approach to providing tangible incremental progress to the player, and it is the first time any game has handled it as such.

Beyond this, shrines brilliantly also serve as immediate and unrestricted fast-travel points, because, as so many others have pointed out, BotW respects the player's time like so many other games fail to do.

The dungeon changes are purely subjective, but coming from someone who proclaims themself to be a serious proponent of sprawling and memorable dungeons as a measure of quality of a Zelda game, I personally found the compromise to be quite reasonable, and I enjoyed the dungeons I experienced thoroughly for their uniqueness and cohesive designs.


"The main objective is to find 12 locations based off of vague geographical clues in pictures that you find on your Shiekah Slate (once the camera app is unlocked). That doesn't sound like it'd be too difficult, until you remember that Hyrule is supposed to be larger than Skyrim is, and unfortunately a lot of it looks relatively the same when you're looking at just a picture."

It's glaringly obvious that you either did not spend enough time playing this game, or you somehow totally missed significant chunks of the formula, as the painter clearly points out to you directions you can use to assist in your location of these memories. It was not very difficult for me to personally find around 10 of them during my 50ish hours playing, and although it is a subjective matter, I absolutely adored the task of scouring the landscape in search of the exact historical spot in which the photos were taken. It was, in my opinion, yet another enjoyable secondary task in which to partake while exploring this diverse, beautiful, believable, and absolutely organic world -- where it feels like most everything was hand-crafted and deliberately-placed. I received no sentiments of artificiality while enjoying BotW's vistas and landscapes, and I am hardly the only person who has said so.


"All in all, you could probably beat these dungeons, acquire the master sword, and kill Ganon in something like 4 or 5 hours if you take everything slow."

If you could accomplish this on the first playthrough I would love to see it -- but even notwithstanding that, who in the name of the Goddess would ever play Breath of the Wild in that fashion? For Nayru's sake, Nintendo themselves have championed the game's extremely open-ended design by advertising that determined players could conceivably conquer Ganon from within the first couple hours of play. Why precisely is that a negative?

The success of an open-world game, I could argue, is directly proportional to its ability to distract the player from the primary storyline and have them enjoy the process of that distraction. Zelda does this better than literally any other game I have ever experienced.



That's the bulk of the criticism in this review distilled down to a few major points. I'm sorry, but it's simply insubstantial, and at best, it rests on an extremely shaky foundation. There is nothing flowery or authoritative about my approach in this post; it's simply preposterous that these are the criteria on which you based a 70% score for a game which has yet to receive anything less than a 90% from a reputable publication. And bear in mind, this isn't even taking into account all of the combative language and magnanimous rhetoric you invoked to try and insinuate that Tom Bond is somehow the only critic who is immune to subconscious bias, or financial persuasion, or brand favoritism.

You're going to have to do far better than this to justify this score if you wish for people to take you seriously in the future. This isn't some Jeff Gerstmann 8.8 debacle; while there were valid concerns about that review way back in 2006, his at least was professionally presented and objectively substantive in its foundation. Before you call me out for being overly concerned about some random guy's 7.0/10, remember that I wasn't the one lobbing grenades here. That choice was made when this review was posted, and from the language employed, it couldn't be clearer that the author was chuckling behind his keyboard, gulping an energy drink, and furiously pecking away in an effort to show all those stupid subhuman fanboys just what a real reviewer has to say about this game.

After which he undoubtedly traveled to Metacritic and voted it a 0 out of 10 under User Reviews.
 
Also, to save you the trouble, in case anyone wants to assail any of my professional reviews, here's a link to one of the more recent ones I posted. I invite you to do so as I constantly strive to be more objective and level-headed in my analyses. Needless to say my views expressed here are not in any way indicative of those of the organization for which I happen to write.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Envy-x360-15t-w200-Convertible-Review.187847.0.html

Please understand that my goal here today is not to be disrespectful; to the contrary, it is merely to point out how disrespectful this review actually is to the community and to the industry. It is quite simply unfair.
 
That's the bulk of the criticism in this review distilled down to a few major points. I'm sorry, but it's simply insubstantial, and at best, it rests on an extremely shaky foundation. There is nothing flowery or authoritative about my approach in this post; it's simply preposterous that these are the criteria on which you based a 70% score for a game which has yet to receive anything less than a 90% from a reputable publication. And bear in mind, this isn't even taking into account all of the combative language and magnanimous rhetoric you invoked to try and insinuate that Tom Bond is somehow the only critic who is immune to subconscious bias, or financial persuasion, or brand favoritism.

You're going to have to do far better than this to justify this score if you wish for people to take you seriously in the future. This isn't some Jeff Gerstmann 8.8 debacle; while there were valid concerns about that review way back in 2006, his at least was profesionally presented and objectively substantive in its foundation. Before you call me out for being overly concerned about some random guy's 7.0/10, remember that I wasn't the one lobbing grenades here. That choice was made when this review was posted, and from the language employed, it couldn't be clearer that the author was chuckling behind his keyboard, munching on Pringles and gulping an energy drink, and furiously pecking away in an effort to show all those stupid subhuman fanboys just what a real reviewer has to say about this game.

I read most of your answer and was thinking that at least you were finally criticizing the review itself, which is something that I can respect, even if I don't agree with your points.
But then you make these 2 last paragraphs as a conclusion and I cannot take you seriously anymore.

First of all:"preposterous that these are the criteria on which you based a 70% score for a game which has yet to receive anything less than a 90% from a reputable publication"
You are again, criticizing a rating, a score.
I'll make an analogy here because I feel it is extremely appropriate. Imagine 2 patients in an hospital, both of them having the exact same injury, same conditions, let's say a sprained ankle.
A doctor asks them to describe exactly how they feel, the precise points where it hurts, where it feels numb etc...
And finally he asks them to rate their pain on a scale of 0 to 10. Now one of them answers 5, and the other 7.
The doctor then looks in disdain at the one who said 7 and says: "This is preposterous, any reputable person who has had a sprained ankle before knows that it deserves at most a pain rating of 6".

I think most people can agree that a universal consensus for the rating of pain does not exist. Yet you are essentially the same as that doctor.
Now what does the score of a video game reflect ? Is it just the fun/entertainment ? Is it the amount of content ? Oh wait, should we also factor in the price of the game maybe ? How do we mix all that.
But wait, you said it right ? "You're going to have to do far better than this to justify this score"
Tell me then, what's the method to make an 'accurate' score ? You have 15+ years of experience at reviewing, you must definitely have that super perfect algorithm to create a score. The same one that IGN has been hiding all this time ? :lol:

And that final phrase:
"That choice was made when this review was posted, and from the language employed, it couldn't be clearer that the author was chuckling behind his keyboard, munching on Pringles and gulping an energy drink, and furiously pecking away in an effort to show all those stupid subhuman fanboys just what a real reviewer has to say about this game."
You are insulting the reviewer now (with neither reason or proof whatsoever). Sorry, but when you use an ad hominem argument as your final point, I just can't take you as a professional person anymore.
 
Reviews of a product are based on objective criteria. Subjective evaluation of tangential criteria can be used to sway the final score in either direction, but when you're talking a 30% drop purely as a matter of subjective dissent, and you're the only professional reviewer anywhere who has concluded such, something's probably wrong.

As for that ad hominem conclusion, it was a joke: see my final tongue-in-cheek sentence about the Metacritic User Review, meant to reference an earlier exchange we had regarding Metacritic's role in all of this. But the central point does exist: the way this review is combatively presented, it's hard to conclude that the writer was doing anything different than approaching this purely from an intention to be contrarian and "show all those morons" just exactly what a real review looks like.

Quoting:

Breath of the Wild: The Real, Un-paid Review (insinuating somehow that all others which disagree are financially influenced)

Whoever designed weapon durability is a moron.

But I can honestly say that I have a lot of issues with how the game works and how Nintendo setup certain aspects, and I refuse to overlook them like everyone else has "because Nintendo". (insinuating that those who "overlooked" these "issues" -- see my above post -- only did so because of the brand name attached to the product)


This entire review is basically an ad hominem on the entire gaming journalism industry.
 
After which he undoubtedly traveled to Metacritic and voted it a 0 out of 10 under User Reviews.

Well sure right after he kicked several puppies and murdered a mime and stole some kids lunch money to pay for drugs to get your sister hooked on heroine!

(It's fun to pretend)
 
Well sure right after he kicked several puppies and murdered a mime and stole some kids lunch money to pay for drugs to get your sister hooked on heroine!

(It's fun to pretend)
This was a joke intended to reference an earlier exchange regarding the validity of Metacritic user reviews. I'm sorry it was misinterpreted (somehow) as a serious comment.

Anyway, enough. I've said my piece, and I believe I've stated it clearly enough. I'm sure no one wants to sling mud for the next 100 comments about the interpretation of a review. The point is, there is a right way and a wrong way.

This is the wrong way. Peace everyone.
 
This was a joke intended to reference an earlier exchange regarding the validity of Metacritic user reviews. I'm sorry it was misinterpreted (somehow) as a serious comment.

Sorry I skipped the entire post because it was "wall of text" it pretty much was the definition of TL DR.

I typically don't bother with multiple paragraphs of whinging on about how someone's opinion is wrong.

I caught the last line of it had a laugh and wanted to play along. I too was kidding and don't believe Tom did any of those things :) lol
 
Sorry I skipped the entire post because it was "wall of text" it pretty much was the definition of TL DR.

I typically don't bother with multiple paragraphs of whinging on about how someone's opinion is wrong.
*sigh*



Person A complains because not enough specificity and substantitive criticism exists in your reply.

Person B complains because too much specificity and substantitive criticism exists in your reply.


I'm going to go catch some college basketball.
 
Weird how not everyone likes things the same way... almost like video game reviews? lol
This would mark the third or fourth time I would have to explicitly explain the subjective versus objective dichotomy, and since you apparently are reluctant to read posts before replying anyway I'm not going to bother.
 
I thought this was a joke. I saw you were critic of some of the best features they ever put in the series, and thought you were downright stupid. Then I opened Opencritic. 69 scores equal or above 9.0, one 7.0, now I understand! It's a clickbait.

Good job trying to bring people to this site, Tom. Too bad no one uses opencritic.
 
Reviews of a product are based on objective criteria. Subjective evaluation of tangential criteria can be used to sway the final score in either direction, but when you're talking a 30% drop purely as a matter of subjective dissent, and you're the only professional reviewer anywhere who has concluded such, something's probably wrong.

As for that ad hominem conclusion, it was a joke: see my final tongue-in-cheek sentence about the Metacritic User Review, meant to reference an earlier exchange we had regarding Metacritic's role in all of this. But the central point does exist: the way this review is combatively presented, it's hard to conclude that the writer was doing anything different than approaching this purely from an intention to be contrarian and "show all those morons" just exactly what a real review looks like.

Quoting:

Breath of the Wild: The Real, Un-paid Review (insinuating somehow that all others which disagree are financially influenced)

Whoever designed weapon durability is a moron.

But I can honestly say that I have a lot of issues with how the game works and how Nintendo setup certain aspects, and I refuse to overlook them like everyone else has "because Nintendo". (insinuating that those who "overlooked" these "issues" -- see my above post -- only did so because of the brand name attached to the product)


This entire review is basically an ad hominem on the entire gaming journalism industry.

First of all, regarding that thing:
"Breath of the Wild: The Real, Un-paid Review (insinuating somehow that all others which disagree are financially influenced)"
Have you ever considered that it might have been you know *cough*, a joke about all the clueless guys ranting about a Nintendo conspiration ?

Regarding the "competent professional" reviews, I don't believe any of the reviewers were paid to give Zelda good ratings. You mentioned the 8.8 Jeff Gerstmann review. I would love to hear what you thought about that particular rating. Do you think 8.8 is an outrage and the game deserved objectively more ? You did say that "Subjective evaluation of tangential criteria" (watch out badass words right there) can sway the rating ? Do you think a 0.2 sway was not acceptable (or 1.2 if you believe TP was perfect) ?

But wait, it'll blow your mind. Have you ever considered that the reviewers might actually have slightly overrated the Zelda game from their usual scale voluntarily, without incentive from Nintendo ?
And for none other reason than let's say, to avoid a fan community backlash ? Like the one you are kind of participating in right now ? :P Mind blowing thought right.
The thing is, review sites these days have a lot more to lose with a bad rating than a good one, especially with so many people not reading the reviews and just looking at the score then commenting on that, even if the review makes valid points. And there are quite a few precedents of fans from popular franchises lashing out after seeing a bad rating. Most recent examples coming to mind are Uncharted 4 and FF15. This kind of behaviour can lead reviewers to be much less critical than they might be unlike with a new franchise. You need to stop placing the professional reviews on a pedestal.

And sorry, but your obsession with the score, I just don't get it.
"Reviews of a product are based on objective criteria. Subjective evaluation of tangential criteria can be used to sway the final score in either direction, but when you're talking a 30% drop purely as a matter of subjective dissent, and you're the only professional reviewer anywhere who has concluded such, something's probably wrong."
What's the maximum drop then ;O;. Can you give me a +/- range of accepted difference with the Oh so powerful and righteous Metacritic score. Who established that sway by the way ? God himself ? :rolleyes:
Seriously, for me a game review is how the reviewer evaluates the game with his tastes. What's important is not if he follows a perfect theoretical consensus, but that his tastes match mine, so I can safely make a decision based on his review and know I will like the game.
A 7/10 does not seem like a MINDBLOWING, INCONCEIVABLE score to me from someone who's already played open-world games and doesn't like having breakable weapons. But maybe everyone should streamline their personal tastes, fuck being an individual with different likes and dislikes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geodeath
Regarding the "competent professional" reviews, I don't believe any of the reviewers were paid to give Zelda good ratings. You mentioned the 8.8 Jeff Gerstmann review. I would love to hear what you thought about that particular rating. Do you think 8.8 is an outrage and the game deserved objectively more ? You did say that "Subjective evaluation of tangential criteria" (watch out badass words right there) can sway the rating ? Do you think a 0.2 sway was not acceptable (or 1.2 if you believe TP was perfect) ?
You seem to have misinterpreted the entire point of my bringing up Jeff's review: it's that his score, while a bit lower (well, nothing nearly as preposterous as a 28 percent discrepancy from the average and a 22 percent drop from the next lowest score) was properly justified by substantive criticism.

I don't feel like most anyone here comprehends the process of reading and replying. It's puzzling.
 
You seem to have misinterpreted the entire point of my bringing up Jeff's review: it's that his score, while a bit lower (well, nothing nearly as preposterous as a 28 percent discrepancy from the average and a 22 percent drop from the next lowest score) was properly justified by substantive criticism.

I don't feel like most anyone here comprehends the process of reading and replying. It's puzzling.

I read your post and answered it. You read my post and answered only a tiny tidbit of it. And YOU misinterpreted it, because I simply asked your stance regarding that Gerstmann matter, which you just gave me, thanks for that. You don't answer the rest of my post though(or don't read it) but insinuate I don't understand how to read and answer, the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:
 
This would mark the third or fourth time I would have to explicitly explain the subjective versus objective dichotomy, and since you apparently are reluctant to read posts before replying anyway I'm not going to bother.
It's a game review. It's mostly subjective. The reviewer didn't even mention that the game runs like crap at certain points, which is an objective fact.

I read your essay and other posts. What you've written is just as subjective, if not more subjective, than the review.

You claim that the reviewer is docking 30% for subjective stuff. That's not how scoring works. Games don't start at 10 and then get docked.

Also, you ended your essay with a personal attack, specifically the bit about the Pringles. That's the lamest thing you could've done.
 
I read your post and answered it. You read my post and answered only a tiny tidbit of it. And YOU misinterpreted it, because I simply asked your stance regarding that Gerstmann matter, which you just gave me, thanks for that. You don't answer the rest of my post though(or don't read it) but insinuate I don't understand how to read and answer, the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:
The rest of your post has already been addressed in my previous replies. It seems you have forgotten that I am not the one who lobbed the original grenade, who posted a largely unsubstantiated criticism of a game accompanied by both inflammatory, self-aggrandizing rhetoric and a score which is significantly lower than any other respected publication from many dozens of samples.
 
The rest of your post has already been addressed in my previous replies. It seems you have forgotten that I am not the one who lobbed the original grenade, who posted a largely unsubstantiated criticism of a game accompanied by both inflammatory, self-aggrandizing rhetoric and a score which is significantly lower than any other respected publication from many dozens of samples.
The rest of my post hasn't been adressed really.
You've said nothing about whether or not the big reviews site will more likely overevaluate or assign a person who will immensely enjoy the game to do the review to avoid criticism when adressing a huge franchise to avoid fan backlash.
Neither do your posts explain in any way why a video game reviewer should evaluate a game without basing it on his own tastes and instead streamline his opinion.
Reviewers with highly different tastes cater to different people. It's all about finding a reviewer who matches yours.
 
And I'm sorry for the Pringles comment. It was a joke, but it was over the line and I apologize for it. The rest of what I've said I stand by however.
 
its no secret that you can beat the game preaty fast, but there are a LOT of things for you to do in this game. explore the map, complete all quests, hunt, find hiden treasure boxes, etc..
 
@geodeath:

The argument is not that metacritic is the Bible of all gaming reviews compendiums or the final word on anything. It is, rather, that when 70+ professionals all come to a consensus that -- objectively-speaking, as much as possible -- a game is one of the greatest they have ever had the pleasure of evaluating, it is beyond suspect when a single reviewer trots along (inflammatory rhetoric notwithstanding -- which, by the way, absolutely exists throughout this entire review) and condemns the game to a middling, unremarkable, absolutely pedestrian score of 7/10 -- 22% below any other score previously assigned to it.

~76+ professional reviewers (many of which with rational, expertly worded, level-headed articles): 90+% (average: 98%)
1 individual (openly flaunting his contrarianism, combative in his tone, gloating over his criticisms magnanimously): 70%

I don't care how you interpret the role of Metacritic or any other repository for review scores of products. The bottom line is that Mr. Bond's review is an outlier, and it's not even a well-defended or well-communicated one. It's presented as an intentional kick in the crotch, and although likely (fortunately) no one is going to take it seriously, it still is a black mark on the history of what otherwise is a magnificent achievement by all other (objective) accounts from people who evaluate such products professionally.

Look, I'll say it again: I, more than anyone, should be able to accept and embrace dissenting opinions over the quality of a product. This is, after all, the sole purpose of professional product reviews to begin with, and it's why I get paid to do what I do. But there is a line between objective evaluative criteria (with some inevitable subjective squabbles tossed in) and unfounded bitching and moaning over a product -- and having sunk dozens of hours into this game myself, it could not be more obvious just why it is that people are so up in arms over the foolishness of this particular article.

Look, i get what you are trying to say. However, what i am saying in defence of the reviews meaning (and not wording if you prefer) is that just because 70 people say something is magnificent, it does not mean it unilaterally is. Yes, it got high points. Read all of the comments on this review and you will see that many people agree more or less with quite a lot of his comments.

I enjoy the game. I just do not enjoy it as much as i would a Zelda. Zelda for me is something specific, for you it might be another thing. And as another commenter said, everything has to do with timing. Having played countless open world games, there is almost nothing new here for people who played them all. There are a few impressive bits of physics and environment details that i am not sure if new or not (as there is no possible way to play them all) so i am giving a praise for these but i am not going to praise the flaws as i see them.

What the reviews say to me really is that there is a really big hype. I read the Edge review. There is almost no detail in there in the mechanics at all. It is almost as everyone just reviewed the game purely in the sense of size, in which it is indeed very grand. The few people reviews where they went into the mechanics, usually outline these flaws.

At the end of the day, a review is one person's opinion. Differing reviews are important to the prospecting buyers. If i have read a review that would find all the flaws as i see them, that would drive me off the game. But i didn't. So it is my right to say my opinion here, as much as you can do and possible help people who get kicked in the nuts by the mechanics that might not work for them.

At the end of the day, some games will be devisive. Resident Evil 4 is one of them. You love it or you hate it. I loved it. My flatmate absolutely hates it because it changes the mechanics.
 
I was lucky enough to find a Switch on stock an hour ago, it lies now by my side while I wait my Zelda copy to arrive. So I will try it myself (and I hope I like it, but meh)

It is a good game man. It really depends what you played before. If you cut your teeth on open world games, most of it will be something you saw before. If you have no experience on open world games.. i think you are in for a treat!
 
I don't write these replies as a product reviewer; the point of mentioning that is simply to prove that there are those of us who do this professionally who are fully aware of what separates a successful review from a vapid and reputationally-damaging one.

And I can't believe I'm about to do this, but precisely because someone earlier called me out for being insubstantial in my criticisms of this review, here are my quick responses to all of the major criticisms in this review:


"In Breath of the Wild, virtually everything will just straight up kill you if you don't manage to kill it first."

This isn't even remotely true. BotW isn't even all that challenging of a game in many cases, and while I've seen plenty of Game Overs during my time with it, for a person who's spent any appreciable amount of time with Dark Souls, Zelda is a relative cakewalk. Fairness does not apply; the game does indeed guide you somewhat away from areas which are currently beyond your reach using immediately tougher enemies, but the rewards are in turn substantially greater for those who choose to try and survive those areas. It is a risk/reward equation and it works extremely well by most accounts.


"Another mechanic is the re-introduction of weapon/shield durability, and let me just start off by saying it's easily the worst gameplay mechanic Nintendo has put in the game, and I hope whomever made the decision to make it so awful was fired."

Weapon durability is inconvenient by design, just like weather systems, time of day constraints, topology... heck, everything which is challenging could be construed as inconvenient or "the worst gameplay mechanic" based on the subjective criteria applied here in this criticism. The truth is, however, it serves an extremely valuable purpose in this game by coaxing the player to actively and consciously manage their equipment, as well as preserve better items in anticipation of tougher encounters down the road. It's fun because it's challenging.

Furthermore, I can honestly say that there has not been a single incident beyond the first four to five hours of play where I was in need of a weapon to proceed further. The game literally throws them at your feet after every encounter, and because of that, weapon durability in this game is really less of a stumbling block and more of a source of variety, so you can't simply Master Sword yourself to victory for the rest of the last 100 hours of the game once you happen to stumble upon it.

This is an absolutely insubstantial and short-sighted criticism which fails to consider the alternative of NOT implementing any sort of limiting mechanics regarding weapons usage.


"it’s a terrible open world. The biggest problem is that it’s just so empty and lifeless. Practically nothing is going on in at least 80+% of the entire map"

Again, this is the polar opposite of what pretty much every other reviewer has said, and I couldn't disagree more myself. The game world in Zelda feels more alive than it does in any other open-world game I have played to date, in part because of the empty spaces. This is to say, it is balanced. It isn't all action, it isn't all crowded, though there is plenty of that to be had in various places throughout the adventure. But as evidenced by its minimalist overworld soundtrack, BotW is a game which is about the atmosphere... and that atmosphere is intoxicating and stunningly believable once you dive into it for a few hours.


"there are 120 of these [shrines] and most of them are really simple puzzles that take maybe a minute or two to go through"

And plenty of others are a series of multiple rooms that can take as long as twenty minutes to solve.

Again, it's all a matter of balance, which is something this game clearly strives to master, and it does mostly master it -- more so than any other open-world game to date arguably.

Consider what is incentivized in a game. What is your incentive? In most open-world games, combat and quest completion are the two items which are rewarded, generally for EXP or some rough equivalent. Zelda diverges from this approach and instead chooses to reward specifically exploration. This is because the game knows its strength is in the richness of the game world itself.

It does so by rewarding the location (and/or completion of) A. shrines (trade for heart containers and stamina upgrades), B. Great Fairy Fountains (upgrade equipment), C. Treasure chests and equivalent bonuses, and D. Korok Seeds (inventory expansion). It is a brilliant approach to providing tangible incremental progress to the player, and it is the first time any game has handled it as such.

Beyond this, shrines brilliantly also serve as immediate and unrestricted fast-travel points, because, as so many others have pointed out, BotW respects the player's time like so many other games fail to do.

The dungeon changes are purely subjective, but coming from someone who proclaims themself to be a serious proponent of sprawling and memorable dungeons as a measure of quality of a Zelda game, I personally found the compromise to be quite reasonable, and I enjoyed the dungeons I experienced thoroughly for their uniqueness and cohesive designs.


"The main objective is to find 12 locations based off of vague geographical clues in pictures that you find on your Shiekah Slate (once the camera app is unlocked). That doesn't sound like it'd be too difficult, until you remember that Hyrule is supposed to be larger than Skyrim is, and unfortunately a lot of it looks relatively the same when you're looking at just a picture."

It's glaringly obvious that you either did not spend enough time playing this game, or you somehow totally missed significant chunks of the formula, as the painter clearly points out to you directions you can use to assist in your location of these memories. It was not very difficult for me to personally find around 10 of them during my 50ish hours playing, and although it is a subjective matter, I absolutely adored the task of scouring the landscape in search of the exact historical spot in which the photos were taken. It was, in my opinion, yet another enjoyable secondary task in which to partake while exploring this diverse, beautiful, believable, and absolutely organic world -- where it feels like most everything was hand-crafted and deliberately-placed. I received no sentiments of artificiality while enjoying BotW's vistas and landscapes, and I am hardly the only person who has said so.


"All in all, you could probably beat these dungeons, acquire the master sword, and kill Ganon in something like 4 or 5 hours if you take everything slow."

If you could accomplish this on the first playthrough I would love to see it -- but even notwithstanding that, who in the name of the Goddess would ever play Breath of the Wild in that fashion? For Nayru's sake, Nintendo themselves have championed the game's extremely open-ended design by advertising that determined players could conceivably conquer Ganon from within the first couple hours of play. Why precisely is that a negative?

The success of an open-world game, I could argue, is directly proportional to its ability to distract the player from the primary storyline and have them enjoy the process of that distraction. Zelda does this better than literally any other game I have ever experienced.



That's the bulk of the criticism in this review distilled down to a few major points. I'm sorry, but it's simply insubstantial, and at best, it rests on an extremely shaky foundation. There is nothing flowery or authoritative about my approach in this post; it's simply preposterous that these are the criteria on which you based a 70% score for a game which has yet to receive anything less than a 90% from a reputable publication. And bear in mind, this isn't even taking into account all of the combative language and magnanimous rhetoric you invoked to try and insinuate that Tom Bond is somehow the only critic who is immune to subconscious bias, or financial persuasion, or brand favoritism.

You're going to have to do far better than this to justify this score if you wish for people to take you seriously in the future. This isn't some Jeff Gerstmann 8.8 debacle; while there were valid concerns about that review way back in 2006, his at least was professionally presented and objectively substantive in its foundation. Before you call me out for being overly concerned about some random guy's 7.0/10, remember that I wasn't the one lobbing grenades here. That choice was made when this review was posted, and from the language employed, it couldn't be clearer that the author was chuckling behind his keyboard, gulping an energy drink, and furiously pecking away in an effort to show all those stupid subhuman fanboys just what a real reviewer has to say about this game.

After which he undoubtedly traveled to Metacritic and voted it a 0 out of 10 under User Reviews.

I appreciate the explanation of your thoughts, however, keep in mind still, that it is all about opinions.

I disagree with most of your replies to his points but i will only say 1 or 2 things, as i feel we have covered people's grievances quite thoroughly already.

If somebody asked me before playing this game, what am i looking for in a zelda game, my answers would be:

1. classic inventory items, staple zelda stuff (hookshot etc) along with whatever new they might add
2. dungeons. There lies at least 50% of the value of zelda for myself. As a young gamer, i cut my teeth in zelda for the nes and game boy. I will not simply trade dungeons with a hundred shrines, sorry. They do not make up the loss of dungeons in my book.
3. Weapon degradation has been done before and i have no issues with it on the face of it. I disagree with how fast things break. I was playing it last night and i had to actually equip 2 extra weapons (as i started the fight with whatever was equipped at the time) to finish a normal mob of 6 enemies. This is simply, ridiculous. Other games have done degradation and it worked. Dying Light comes to mind and it offers weapons left right and center as well. NOBODY complained about that game. Cause it gives you heads up long before something breaks, shows you a percentage of how close it is to breaking and believe it or not, the longer duration actually made me ACTIVELY hunt for weapons of a bigger damage. In this game, i can see no reason to hunt for a good weapon (excluding the ms of course) knowing it will break fighting 1-2 mobs. Durability might be better down the road, but right now it is simply ridiculously short and completely game breaking for me. I simply avoid fights, unless i really have to get a chest or the mob is around an interest point as simply, there is no reward for fighting out of this spectrum. None that i found at least.

So, to put it simply. Nintendo could very easily patch an OPTION in this game to please all of us. Instead, it turned an adventure game into a survivalist game. Dying Light did this much better in any single possible way. Take its mechanics and drop them in Breath of the Wild and yes, that would be an absolute 10/10.

As somebody else pointed out, this game will never be remembered by the industry (important - not the players) for defining mechanics or game design. Because it follows game design done by others for more than 10 years now. I can name every single bit of this game and where it was done first, maybe apart from the weather effects. I will not. Cause taking inspiration from others is fine in my book. Just do it right! Really hope someone will patch this, or a cheat comes out for weapon degradation, weapons should really last at least 2-3 times more if not 10. There is nothing more game breaking for me than having to rely on dropped weapons all the time or switching mid fight from a nice sword to a RAKE or PADDLE.

This is the Legend of Zelda god dammit, not breaking bad!!!
 
This was a joke intended to reference an earlier exchange regarding the validity of Metacritic user reviews. I'm sorry it was misinterpreted (somehow) as a serious comment.

Anyway, enough. I've said my piece, and I believe I've stated it clearly enough. I'm sure no one wants to sling mud for the next 100 comments about the interpretation of a review. The point is, there is a right way and a wrong way.

This is the wrong way. Peace everyone.

The fact of the matter is we are actually discussing and disagreeing about the mechanics the reviewer thinks are flawed. I do not care if the review is a 7 or a 10. What i care about and the sole reason why i voiced my concerns in this review (first time on a review) is because i agree with his comments regarding the mechanics and not because of a score.

As long as there are conflicting voices regarding the game and not the score, the game is not perfect. Same goes for Tony Hawk (2nd best game ever according to experts), GTAV and HALO. Hell, IGN even mentions Phanton Pain as a perfect game! I stopped playing 5 hours into the game simply because it turned from Metal Gear to a private army micro management suite. Many games have bloated reviews. We have to deal with that. The fact that you side with the perfect reviews says nothing. All it says is that you enjoyed it as much. I am sure we will find people who enjoyed Phantom Pain, GTAV and Halo as much. All of them not 10s for me too.

Peace
 
If you have no experience on open world games.. i think you are in for a treat!

A semi serious question I ask when reviewing games is would I use it as a means to introduce someone to a concept, and might there be a better choice for it. Obviously there are provisos for the person (say someone never watched fantasy but they did watch the wire with me and then game of thrones is a good choice, for my grandma I would probably pick something a bit more light and fluffy). From what I have seen and has been said then while there are probably far worse choices I am leaning towards there being far better ones too.

I saw Just Cause mentioned earlier and while I have only played 2 and 3 (probably like most others that have done the series) I will dodge the empty thing (I would argue the opposite and while it is not jam packed it is seriously dense for a game like that) and put forth that, not every time but a sizeable portion of the time, you rock up in a base/town/whatever you can get a fairly organic but good gunfight going on.

With most storytelling being linear, or at least guided, by nature then open world is a potentially quite radical concept to some and a lot of it is still being worked on. I have to be wary of that every time I encounter it, and actually would look to first bridging the gap for new players with a freeform mission game.
 
When you are done with Zelda, give blaster master zero a try, is on the store now as of today (at least in usa) so i recommend it if you like Metroid-castlevania based game. If i was reviewing it, my statement would be "Rebooting the series with a mix of Mega man x" :P

Is made by inticreates, the people who been making mega man games since like 2001... hey that is 15 YEARS. OKAY COOL. ^_^

I will give it a perfect zero just to see how many people actually read the review and not just look at the score. Please, the score is pointless, the text is the important part. :teach:
Thanks for the recommendation.
Zelda still doesn't arrive. So I bought this Blaster Master Zero game on the eshop to have something to play in between.
The game is fucking awesome.
Review coming WHEN?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sonic Angel Knight
@geodeath,

Apologies in advance for not having the time to commit a full and detailed reply to you, but I want to assure you ahead of time that I did, in fact, read through every word of your replies before posting this message.

There are items which we will never agree on based on what I read in your posts. Those I cannot address not only because I have already stated my position earlier, but also because it will provide no benefit to either of us.

I only wanted to reply to one thing in particular. You stated that Zelda will not be remembered/referenced by the gaming industry (outside of fans) due to its refusal to trailblaze in any significant way apart from that which other games have already done.

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with this prediction however. Whereas Zelda absolutely does tread new ground in many areas, such as those of environmental cohesiveness, authenticity, wildlife (and even to some extent NPC) interaction, meaningful secrets and treasures sprinkled throughout the game world, and many others, the central point of my above breakdown is that the game focuses its efforts primarily on one quality, and that is this: balance.

It is abundantly clear that, in the planning stages of the game, the developers sat down and examined what precisely it was they wished to incentivize and how best to craft the experience to provide for the player the most enriching balance possible. Therein lies BotW's greatest achievement, and it arguably may be the most challenging and elusive of all to manage within the daunting open-world genre, where games are so often condemned as artificial, repetitive, contrived, empty, full, insubstantial, overwhelming, underwhelming, too realistic, not realistic enough. It is, and for quite some time will be, closely studied by other developers as a reference regarding how to best manage these problems. It is because of that, and not because of the Zelda brand, that so many critics have universally praised the game. It is the full package that matters, and in BotW, the sum is absolutely greater than the parts.

In Breath of the Wild, the journey is the destination.
 
Thanks for the recommendation.
Zelda still doesn't arrive. So I bought this Blaster Master Zero game on the eshop to have something to play in between.
The game is fucking awesome.
Review coming WHEN?
Blaster Master was a classic in the 80s. I can't wait to dive into Zero.
 
Thanks for the recommendation.
Zelda still doesn't arrive. So I bought this Blaster Master Zero game on the eshop to have something to play in between.
The game is fucking awesome.
Review coming WHEN?
If no one does review it, i will. Just know i will purposely give it a zero score so people will actually read text to know if is worth playing or not. :P

I been waiting for a review of Azure striker gunvolt games as well, no one done it yet. I may have to do that myself as well. (Provided a port to switch comes as screenshots will be simple to capture and look better in HD) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psionic Roshambo
There is a general line of thought that runs assertions made without reason can be dismissed without reason. That said improvement is always something to strive for so do you care to elaborate on where this may have fallen short?
In the end, reviews are all subjective but I cannot stand when people claim things are well written when I feel they are clearly not. First off, do not ever write something along the lines of "I'm not going to give it a pass just because it's Nintendo/Zelda". This type of statement adds nothing to the review. Nintendo has been getting shit for the past few years in terms of game quality and that statement just screams "I'm being overly critical because it's Nintendo". Secondly, maybe other people like it, but get rid of the tongue and cheek "yays" and "amirite"/strikethroughs/etc. They just sound incredibly condescending to the extent that it made me feel the reviewer was just being dismissive. And with the lack of understanding of game mechanics and options of dealing with "OP" (please don't use that term in a review) enemies, I feel that the reviewer was being very dismissive. Also, don't ever add a "here's what they should have done". You're reviewing a game as it is, not what you want it to be.

Overall, the reviewer needs to have a better understanding of the game and it's mechanics before doing an analysis. And once they understand why certain aspects are how they are, then come to the conclusion (as with the combat complaints not seeming very in-depth). And you know what? Have your reviewers take a writing class. Or just have them study how other game reviewers like Jason Schreier write their reviews. I don't even agree with Schreier most of the time, but I feel his content is at least we'll written.
 
1) I am not going to encourage use of such phrases but I shall not be one to discourage them either. Equally in this case Zelda has long seen the people hyping things, the counter review of a sort is then itself a bit of a tradition. Dealer's Writer's choice.
2) The first part is a reviewer style choice. While I do enjoy the odd strikethrough I personally do try to avoid the other things mentioned. I might speculate whether the prevalence of video reviews wherein such a thing might be delivered more sarcastically, in a lower register, in a trailing voice, in extreme close up, or as something akin to how a fourth wall break is often used, has caused something like this but that is a discussion for a different day.
I will however agree OP as a shorthand for overpowered without a henceforth construction does risk some confusion at some level (scanning the first page of http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=op has it defined as overpowered as far back as 2006 so there is that). In context of the section, and for the intended audience it could slide by but were I to play editor it would probably be replaced.

I can't speak to a lack of understanding of the engine but given the reviewer references the souls franchise, and could be said to be of a passing familiarity with the concept, they have the benefit of the doubt from me. Personally I would have read it as speaking to an idea that combat was not very fulfilling, or became a chore. Whether that was a nudge from the game devs to maybe consider racing on by, avoidance/stealth or speaking on a philosophical level as to the toll of combat that the reviewer overlooked I do not know, still stands though.

"don't ever add a "here's what they should have done". You're reviewing a game as it is, not what you want it to be."
Fuck no. You might phrase it more diplomatically with something like "were I in charge I would have" but the sentiment there I can not get behind in the slightest. We have cheats, we have ROM hacks, we have savestates, we have controller mods, and we have many other means of modifying play. For some game playing may be a work handed down from on high, something I will usually phrase "the vision of the devs", but I will have to play the *points at the site we are on* card here. Even without that I can not get to it being bad form to offer a suggestion on an improvement in a review, though I could at least see it being a style guideline. If nothing else it can work as a fairly concise way of highlighting a shortcoming in a game/mechanic.

Never heard of that reviewer but I will take a look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: invaderyoyo
Yeah, I mean it's obvious to anyone with any degree of writing experience that the author could seriously use a course or other form of instruction on writing. But I wasn't going to bother mentioning this originally because it's pretty clear from the start that the author doesn't actually take himself all that seriously as a critic. It's more of a "fan" review than any sort of appreciably objective analysis as one might expect from a renowned publication... so you almost have to give it a pass for that.

Which again, renders it all the more puzzling that anyone (okay, just OpenCritic, but nevertheless) would choose to include these scores in their meta rankings -- especially since everyone here seems so divorced from the belief that the numbers even communicate anything at all. It appears to be the case that the defense here is the same as that of every publication who has ever published a garbage hit piece and been called out on it: it's an opinion, that's all reviews are, they're heavily subjective, just because everyone else likes it doesn't mean that this guy has to, statistics don't matter, so on, so on.

Of course, that brings us to the second point, and it's one which I did try to make: and that's the combative, provocative, belittling, self-aggrandizing tone of the entire piece. As if the honorable Tom Bond is some sort of prodigy of product evaluation, even to the extent which he is able to transcend all of the inherent temptations and subconscious biases that come along with being provided products by a company for review.

That is the biggest problem. The score is an issue also (no matter what anyone says), but primarily because it cannot be properly and objectively defended... especially not via this tone and approach. And, of course, because it is likely the only reason why so many of us even stumbled upon the review to begin with.


Also: Jason Schreier writes for Kotaku and is a great guy.
 
I can't speak to a lack of understanding of the engine but given the reviewer references the souls franchise, and could be said to be of a passing familiarity with the concept, they have the benefit of the doubt from me. Personally I would have read it as speaking to an idea that combat was not very fulfilling, or became a chore. Whether that was a nudge from the game devs to maybe consider racing on by, avoidance/stealth or speaking on a philosophical level as to the toll of combat that the reviewer overlooked I do not know, still stands though.

"don't ever add a "here's what they should have done". You're reviewing a game as it is, not what you want it to be."
Fuck no. You might phrase it more diplomatically with something like "were I in charge I would have" but the sentiment there I can not get behind in the slightest. We have cheats, we have ROM hacks, we have savestates, we have controller modes, we have many other means of modifying play. For some game playing may be a work handed down from on high, something I will usually phrase "the vision of the devs", but I will have to play the *points at the site we are on* card here. Even without that I can not get to it being bad form to offer a suggestion on an improvement in a review, though I could at least see it being a style guideline. If nothing else it can work as a fairly concise way of highlighting a shortcoming in a game/mechanic.
The issue is the reviewer presents these OP enemies/"bad" combat con without understanding or perhaps dismissing the mechanics that make things "fair". Souls games have the reputation of being "fair" (kinda BS on some parts, but it is/does). The reviewer does not think enemies in BOTW are fair. He even admits to mechanics such as the midair time slows as something he never felt that he needed but definitely can help against some enemies he thinks is "OP". He states that in Souls games things like that only happen if you go to an area undergeared/underleveled but the same applies to BOTW but Zelda is less restrictive on how to get to these locations/situations. Not to mention the autosaves are generally pretty good, where as in Souls you restart at the last bonfire. I just don't understand how he can bring up the Souls games and state "artificial difficulty" for this game, but again, opinions and all.

BOTW has so many options to deal with combat, that I cannot just agree with it being a major complaint. Sure suggesting an improvement to the game is fine, but suggesting one while dismissing all the other options the game gave you? No. Come to that conclusion after you tried those options and even if you come to the same conclusion I will respect your opinions more (or at least not even say that you didn't feel the need for that mechanic i.e. the bow bullet time. That's an improvement the review could make, spend more time detailing the mechanics that they glossed over which may still be a con to the reviewer or readers. And then there's the whole not including performance issues just because it would lower the score too much. What was that about not giving Nintendo a pass? But I guess that could just mean that issue wasn't significant enough for him to lower the overall score, but that definitely is my biggest complaint of the game.

(On a side note: Personally, the weapon durability allows you to actually think before getting in an encounter and encourages all these other options the games presents to you to win a fight which all ties into the combat and whatnot. I can go on and on, but I'll stop here because I realize OPINIONS and all)
 
In all honesty the main issue I have with the combat is that, to me at least, at some point in the game it becomes a chore rather than a chance for reward. Allow me to explain why I feel this way.
First I have to say that I used food rather than elixirs for the most part, so for me getting the materials meant very little outside some side quests or upgrades (and the upgrades meant very little to me because the enemies telegraph their moves so obviously that avoiding them was easy, thus making the whole armour thing a non issue. (And I do mean that. The only armours I bought were to resist the heat and the cold, and while I did upgrade them in hindsight I felt there was ultimately very little reason to do so.)
I don't blame the game for that (rather my playstyle), but it does mean that I'm missing part of the motivation to go and fight enemies.
The second part is that at some point, not necessarily far into the game, you have these weapons that are better than what the normal enemies (and minibosses too for the most part) can give you. This I do sort of blame the game for because it denies you any real reward for fighting them (ie I'm not using a good weapon to obtain some weaker weapons (at least not when I have an inventory of good weapons)).
In games like Dark Souls there's always a reward for fighting the enemies but here I felt there was no reason after getting good weapons, thus causing me to just ignore the enemies altogether (unless they were really in my way, in which case I'd just shoot them to get them out of my way).
I get that it's due to the way I play the game, but it does stop me from enjoying this game as much as some do (and in turn stops me from saying that this game is worth the perfect scores it's been getting).
The final fight on the other hand is another matter entirely, that fight is a joke and it legitimately pissed me off.
edit.
Plus, while this has nothing to do with the combat, I'm honest enough to admit that I miss my uniquely themed dungeons and items. I can't help it, that's just the Zelda I know and love.
 
@nasune:

I hear ya, but here's the thing: the game still rewards you, as enemies scale in difficulty to some extent (greater incidence of, say, Silver Bokoblins as you progress) and with them also scales their weaponry. But even if that doesn't pad your inventory, and -- for instance, like me -- you're constantly full with great weapons (Great Flameblades, Royal Broadswords, et al), you still get valuable gems from these enemies.

And beyond all of that, the monster parts are indeed useful for creating elixirs and even sales profit, so to be honest if you aren't choosing to take advantage of that part of the game, it absolutely is not the game's fault. It's sort of like saying, "well, I would love to go to work for Company X, but their benefits structure does not interest me as they reward you heavily in company stock". To which the reply might be "then why aren't you simply selling the stock and keeping the cash?"

Breath of the Wild is largely what you make of it, but one thing the game is not is short on balance. Of course, the balance more heavily rewards exploration than it does combat (see my earlier exhaustive breakdown for more about this), so it is somewhat to be expected that you might feel less inclined to fight everyone you come across than in just about every other open-world game ever (perhaps excluding Far Cry).

And yes, I know people miss the themed, larger, more numerous dungeon smorgasbord. I definitely don't disagree with that, but ultimately, it is hardly a black mark on Breath of the Wild's overall appeal; the game is terrific all by itself and still thoroughly Zelda, even in evolved/modified form. Perhaps that is where they have a chance to grow with a sequel.

But for me anyway, it's undoubtedly just what nearly everyone else seems to think: a rare 10/10 game.
 
@othersteve

That's true enough for some playstyles, but, like the armours, I don't use shops (again, this is not an issue with the game but rather with my playstyle. There are very few games where I actually use a shop if it's not mandatory for story progression) so rupees effectively became useless after I bought the two armours that I needed (well, not needed but it did ensure that I did not have to deal with a timer while in those environments). Which, again, hardly left me motivated to engage in combat.
As for exploration, I both agree and disagree. While there's certainly a lot to see and do, at some point I feel that again rewards stop being rewards (keep in mind that the following simply comes down to my playstyle/experience with the game).
Enemies can barely hit me, so food is never really an issue (fairness compels me to say that I actually avoided buffs (apart from early game heat and cold resist) to somewhat keep me on my toes, because I really didn't feel the difficulty some others are talking about).
Hearts, again were barely an issue so I gathered enough to get the Master Sword and completely forgot about them.
Stamina is a little more tricky, but the only times you really need it is when you're climbing or swimming (don't get me wrong, running and paragliding are nice, but ultimately when you run out of stamina it's not a big deal) so two bars were more than enough (especially when you realize that the climbing can easily be cheesed).
The only thing that remained a reward were the Korok seeds, but even then I arrived at a point where I felt that I had enough space (and if you consider that the Master Sword (and to the best of my knowledge the bow of light as well) is unbreakable when used against ganon and I don't use a shield there's actually very little reward the game can offer me.
Certainly this is not necessarily the game's fault (although I do believe that obtaining new items do give me that feeling of reward), but this (and my feelings that the story and threat were barely there/every shrine or dungeon is visually identical to the point that you could change them around and it wouldn't matter /I found most npcs to be either utterly forgettable or dicks) does hinder my enjoyment of the game causing me to say that I don't think that this game is that perfect 10/10. That's not to say that the game is bad or incompetently made, because it's still a very good game. It just doesn't wow me like I believe a perfect game should.

edit.
I do want to thank you though, this back and forth does help me rationalize/put into words why I didn't like this game as much as I hoped I would.

edit 2.
I would like to add that I would have engaged in combat just for the hell of it (even though flurry rush kind of means dodge to win), but because of the whole no real rewards after a certain point because of my playstyle thing the durability system they went with can actually feel like it punishes you for getting into random fights.
 
List of problems with this game.
  • EVERYTHING BREAKS (Weapons, bows, shields to be more specific)
  • STAMINA (I ******** Hate it)
  • YOU NEED STAMINA FOR EVERYTHING (Swimming, climbing and paragliding)
  • NO ZELDA SERIES ITEMS (Besides bombs, no hookshot, zora flippers, dash boots or something to mover faster, also no magic at all.)
  • ADDING DEFENSE SYSTEM (Had enough one hit kills, cause i need ARMOR)
  • ADDING ATTACK SYSTEM
  • LIMITED ITEM STORAGE (Item management is the best idea ever invented for a video game. For this zelda game it upsets me. Give me one weapon, shield, and bow that doesn't break, i don't care if is lowest attack, i'll be happy.)
  • WEATHER EFFECTS (Rain makes it hard to climb rocks WHICH YOU DO A LOT OF IN THIS GAME. Random thunder storms, FORCED TO UNEQUIP SPECIFIC WEAPONS TO AVOID THUNDER SHOCKS. Hot and cold is a issue? This game is too realistic, Is a video game, not real life.)
  • SHRINES (having to do so many of them to get a heart or stamina upgrade..... words end here, there is no more words for this statement.)
  • RUPEES (WHERE ARE THEY? My point is so hard to find any, having money issues in zelda is now another level of difficulty. Especially if "SPOILER" YOU NEED IT AS PART OF MAIN STORY AND SIDE QUEST)

Simply put, if i had stuff that don't break, no stamina, easier way to travel especially swimming, and climbing walls, and doing it fast (maybe flying) no concern with weather conditions, and other few things i would feel bit more positive about it. But since some broken discoveries are made i can cope with it eventually. :blink:


I don't agree with a lot of the complaints the main reviewer had, but I'm not going to cover those.

I wanted to comment on this post.

I'm over 30+ hours in and my initial thoughts are 8.5/9 out of 10. Not perfect, but very good. I feel a sense of accomplishment when I learn a strategy or figure out something on my own leading to a A-HA!!!! Moment.

I also feel satisfaction for being able to scale a massive mountain and then viewing the world and knowing holy **** I haven't even thought of going there...this game is massive.

EVERYTHING BREAKS (aka weapon durability)
------------
****ty as it is, it gives you a REASON to swap out weapons and there are plenty of them, otherwise people would use one weapon and never look back...what fun is that? I actually try and learn how to use all weapon types now, and will grab a crappy sword, just so I don't break one of my good ones.

STAMINA / YOU NEED STAMINA FOR EVERYTHING
------------
What fun would it be to be able to scale every mountain, swim everywhere, and do anything without risk, I agree the system has issues, but I concentrated on stamina first then hearts, I couldn't get you know what earlier, but I lived with it (and still don't have it btw) I wanted to paraglide where I wanted to, climb almost every mountain and I needed stamina. Link isn't supposed to be a he-man right after waking up, I'm glad they make me work for it (to a point anyway...to many shrines though)

NO ZELDA SERIES ITEMS
------------
A hook shot would be nice, but I haven't missed the James Bond gadgetry of older Zelda games. No complaints from me.

ADDING DEFENSE SYSTEM / ADDING ATTACK SYSTEM
------------
Like I said 30+ hours in, just finally went to the towns and FINALLY got my first pieces of armor, I learned to live without it, I learned how to FIGHT enemies to survive or avoid them completely if I didn't NEED to kill them. This games makes you play smarter, if not you die A LOT, you'll LEARN soon enough.

A tree branch isn't made for taking a rock monster on...nuff said. And other than being sniped by unseen enemies I haven't had an issue with defense being in this game.

LIMITED ITEM STORAGE
------------
Can't disagree with this, as I'm having an issue with needing more inventory now. Again like any Zelda game you gotta work for it, I just wished the game would explain how/where to get it better (I caved and had to look it up, it was bothering me that much)

Many times early on my weapon broke mid combat, luckily enough the enemy just dropped their's making it a tense situation to where can I get my new weapon fast enough to defend/attack before the enemy gets me, still it makes for being prepared before going into battle.

WEATHER EFFECTS
------------
This RIGHT HERE, is my #1 issue with the game, just posted this earlier:

"Same for me, it's even more fun when climbing and oops a freak rain storm, I was like wtf. I like how you can walk between weather where over here raining & 5 ft to the left it's sunny and the sky is clear (same with hot and cold) being literally where you stand, even thought you might be on the same or higher elevation than another area with 2 different temperatures....

SHRINES
------------
120 odd that there are, that's too bloody many. My bigger issue with them is more the motion controlled ones (I'm playing on Wii U) when the game requires me to use the Wii U controller for the gyro inside, I've had a very difficult time getting it to align itself properly so that when it's flat it's not tilted in game resulting in many minutes of being frustrated because they're forcing me to use the stupid game pad when all I want to use is my Pro Controller. (which could have been done just as easily, but would have made puzzles easier to do, I guess)

Still that's one of the few times it takes me out of the game having to use the gyroscope to solve some of the puzzles...

RUPEES
------------
1 ) Forage
2 ) Collect things
3 ) Craft things
4 ) ????
5 ) Profit

Not sure what the issue is here, there's plenty to gather, collect and even find money every now and again. My only complain is knowing what I CAN SELL vs. what NOT TO SELL. Otherwise money is in good supply. But like everything else in this game, you gotta work for it.

It's not a perfect game, but it's a game that the more you play it, learn how to do things, things click and you get that A-HA!!!! Moment I mentioned above.

It seems like plenty of people were expecting LoZ OoT 2.0 HD. I'm glad we DIDN'T get that game.

I like the exploration (sometimes overwhelming) and discovering new things, somethings are very obtuse and I wished you were told more about basic things (I didn't know if I was ever going to get armor or where to get it, I've only gotten one piece from a shine so far) or who to talk to, to get some of these items.

After reading many of these comments I see two trends. People wanted a traditional HD Zelda & they don't want to grind to get powered up or to get money/equipment, etc. To them, I say play the 3DS games, play the Wii U HD remakes and walk away from this game as you're NOT READY for it YET.

Until you become open minded, you will not get understand those A-HA Moments, and will continually gripe about Stamina or something else that can be overcome as long as you WORK for it. This game feels a lot like Zelda 2 that it comes closer to adding more RPG elements in it, and many people despise adding RPG into Zelda. I think it's about time again.

While there are issues with the game that keep it from being perfect. This is EXACTLY the evolution the Zelda series needed after 30 years. Why repeat the same formula over and over again. Did we really want another Skyward Sword (which would be more appreciated as the next step past OoT if not for the ****ty motion control requirements that everyone including myself despise).
 
That was a good read and is kind of how I feel about the game.
I'm so used to blazing through games and popping platinum trophies that BotW is like a breath of fresh air.
It almost feels zen-like to me. I have no urge to finish it and am just relaxing, moseying around watching it unfold.
I don't think it's a 10, but then I don't think any game is a 10. I couldn't put a number on it yet, even though I've played 20 hours or so, I've hardly done anything but play around and see what is possible with the systems and mechanics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: netovsk and farmin
Before i forget to say this, my honest opinion about the game is that is not a bad game, i don't dislike the game, but i don't love it.

I feel most of the reason why the controversy has started maybe be another thing that has happened in the past. The fact remains this game is called "The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild" That is just the point. Because it has the name of one of nintendo best games is the whole reason why i feel the reason for the discussions.

The game isn't bad but i think most of what the game happens to offer could be themed in different way, Adventure time, sound like a perfect fit for the way this game plays. But just cause it has the zelda title i feel is getting the reputation it has among people. Remember Super mario bros? Remember the MOVIE super mario bros? Kinda the same thing, it has a name and things that people might have expected but what they got was different. It could have been a fine movie on its own but is has a name that didn't bring what people would expect from it. (and probably was also a bad movie)

Anyway is just my opinion, if this was called adventure time or maybe something else, a brand new game not part of zelda, the opinions and reviews may be different. Watching the adventure time tv show and playing this game make me feel like it would have made more sense, the idea of all the stuff in this game shows off more of that tv show.
 
I'm sorry but there simply is no fragment of my existence as a rational, analytical (by nature and profession) being that I can buy the "it's only been so highly prasied because it's Zelda" story. If you ask me, it's complete and total hogwash -- and anyone who deconstructs games and criticizes them professionally can easily see why. I don't care how powerful a brand is, the fact is that it's just not possible for any game to climb to an absolutely insane 97 to ~98.5% total score on Metacritic, GameRankings (where it is currently #1 of all time), and OpenCritic (where it is also currently #1) -- which are, by definition, statistical averages of all of the biggest and best-trusted organizations as it applies to game criticism and evaluation -- simply because of the name attached to it. To suggest that is simply insanity.

If anyone wants to position themselves as one of the elite, omniscient, impossible to please detractors, that's fine, and it's a common phenomenon within the hardcore gaming crowds. Contrarianism is one reason, and the other is the argument that "no game is ever a 10". Which, by the way, begs the immediate question: then why have a possible 10 as a score to begin with? Likewise, you can't compare a number to infinity and expect the comparison to make sense or provide any real sense of scope. So why assume the top of the rankings system implies perfection at all?

Who cares I suppose... it's all rather pointless. But I for one am not afraid to proclaim it a definitive 10/10. It's an incredibly rare occasion that we encounter a game of this caliber, and I can't think of anything of any recency that deserves it more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: netovsk and farmin
Yeah, there's a difference between breakable weapons which are executed correctly in many games (Fallout: New Vegas comes to mind) and weapons made out of styrofoam. Open world is great, provided there's stuff to see (again, Fallout). Randomly-generated dungeons are great if the algorithm creates interesting and challenging dungeons (as in Diablo). Introducing interesting mechanics is not enough, it's the execution that matters. If the game executes lofty ideas poorly, the score should reflect that. Tom is a harsh but ultimately fair critic, not every game needs to be a 10, and besides, 7 is a great score as-is.

I think the durability was a bust simply because they should have added a forge, and blacksmithing skill in the game. You have ore already, why not add " Iron / copper / titanium ", and ways to sharpen, and strengthen your weapons?
 
Yes, i understand why it sounds opposite to what i am supposed to say. However, what i am meaning to say, is that there is always something to do, see or look around. People driving, things to pick up, cars or vehicles to hijack etc. It is not perfect either. Just not big for being big!

The fact that i am comparing it to this, should be a hint. I do not consider it a perfect open world game, however, for the purpose it fulfils, it is fine. In Zelda it is just *too* empty!!!

2 mobs with 2 crates between kakariko village and the next village (whatever the name is) while running for 15 minutes between them is not lively, or full!

Everything you just described bar two things is in BotW, "always something to do, see or look around" & "things to pick up" describes literally 80% of my play time with this game. Your other 2 points "people driving" and "cars or vehicles to hijack" are just describing the fact that there's cars in the game, why that constitutes a "lively" game world I'm not sure. If all you did between Kakariko and Hateno was encounter 2 mobs and literally nothing else you either encountered a bug or stuck to an extremely rigid and direct route while engaging with absolutely nothing along the way.
I guess this whole thing comes down to how you define "lively", when playing the majority of world games I can't help but see pretty much every npc as a meaningless piece of set dressing like a tree or rock. Sure these people are "driving" or "running" or "working" but I know they're not doing anything important, they're scripted to appear randomly and run an animation loop until the game de-spawns them because I'm too far away. The illusion is too easy for me to see through and in the end these npcs all blur together and feel completely devoid of life to me.
 
You want examples of 10/10? Unreal Tournament. Perfect execution of the genre for its time, stable and extremely enjoyable, defined gaming for years to come. Half Life - another perfect game, completely redefined how storytelling works in an FPS environment. There's loads, and you can tell they're 10/10 because they're liked unanimously. A 10/10 has to be not only competent, but groundbreaking and genre-defining. BotW is Skyrim Lite.

Have to disagree there, I guess firstly I've never really enjoyed Half-Life or Half-Life 2 (I'll prepare my own noose it's ok) and there's plenty of highly praised games and "greatest games of all time" people despise so I'd disagree with the Unanimous sentiment.

Secondly I'd give plenty of 10/10s to games that do barely anything groundbreaking or genre-defining.
Portal 2 - Just Portal 1 but with a handful of new mechanics and a more directly told story, 10/10 for me.
Bloodborne - Dark Souls with some mechanical tweaks, 10/10 for me.
MGS3 - It's MGS, but in the jungle with some light survival mechanics, 10/10 for me.
Not to mention a ton of critically acclaimed games with near perfect scores that are just sequels or extremely derivative of other games such as Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2, Skyrim (a game plenty of people will still argue is inferior to Morrowind or Oblivion), Fallout 3 (a game I personally can't stand) and the list goes on.

My point here is I don't really think every 10/10 has to be some genre-defining masterpiece that pushes the entire industry forwards, if we followed that rule-set we'd've all been dishing out 6/10's on Skyrim and heralding Spacechem as the second coming back in 2011.
 
Have to disagree there, I guess firstly I've never really enjoyed Half-Life or Half-Life 2 (I'll prepare my own noose it's ok) and there's plenty of highly praised games and "greatest games of all time" people despise so I'd disagree with the Unanimous sentiment.

Secondly I'd give plenty of 10/10s to games that do barely anything groundbreaking or genre-defining.
Portal 2 - Just Portal 1 but with a handful of new mechanics and a more directly told story, 10/10 for me.
Bloodborne - Dark Souls with some mechanical tweaks, 10/10 for me.
MGS3 - It's MGS, but in the jungle with some light survival mechanics, 10/10 for me.
Not to mention a ton of critically acclaimed games with near perfect scores that are just sequels or extremely derivative of other games such as Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2, Skyrim (a game plenty of people will still argue is inferior to Morrowind or Oblivion), Fallout 3 (a game I personally can't stand) and the list goes on.

My point here is I don't really think every 10/10 has to be some genre-defining masterpiece that pushes the entire industry forwards, if we followed that rule-set we'd've all been dishing out 6/10's on Skyrim and heralding Spacechem as the second coming back in 2011.
Bloodborne is far from a 10/10, it had a number of issues. All of the other games you mentioned *were* genre-defining or at the very least significantly improved a series with an already solid foundation. Take MGS 3 for instance - it built upon the stealth action game genre *and* added several survival elements, like hunting and camouflage, things we didn't see before in games like it. Fallout 3 (also not a 10, that'd be New Vegas) took a well-established series into the 3D realm without sacrificing anything and revamped the AP system, creating one of the best turn-based combat systems that don't feel turn-based at all, something jRPG's struggle with and can't get right to this day. Those are all noteworthy games that *did* steer the industry in this way or another.
 
Bloodborne is far from a 10/10, it had a number of issues. All of the other games you mentioned *were* genre-defining or at the very least significantly improved a series with an already solid foundation. Take MGS 3 for instance - it built upon the stealth action game genre *and* added several survival elements, like hunting and camouflage, things we didn't see before in games like it. Fallout 3 (also not a 10, that'd be New Vegas) took a well-established series into the 3D realm without sacrificing anything and revamped the AP system, creating one of the best turn-based combat systems that don't feel turn-based at all, something jRPG's struggle with and can't get right to this day. Those are all noteworthy games that *did* steer the industry in this way or another.

....right, so that's why I said Bloodborne is a 10/10 for me and didn't imply you.
Yeah sure, they all improved on a foundation and were better for it but they were by no means groundbreaking and mostly derivative of things that came before it. I'm not discrediting these games, derivative is not a negative term in my books but I would certainly argue none of the games I mentioned (except kinda sort of Fallout 3) defined a genre.
MGS3 is a great game but if you take away the bells and whistles it still shares the fundamental DNA of MGS2 it's just more refined and polished. It wasn't some earth shattering Mario 64 masterpiece that redefined the boundaries of what was possible in games it was just a truly great polished game. I would point to MGS1 as "genre-defining" I would point to MGS3 as "also great if not better".
My only real point here was that I don't agree with your standards for what qualifies a 10/10, there's no set criteria for a game being perfect for someone, Resident Evil (remake) when played on a Gamecube with tank controls is honestly in my opinion the best game ever made. Taste is subjective, nothing is perfect and sometimes something derivative can just be really damn good.
 
I don't usually respond to reviews but I sold my copy having spent a good 6 to 8 hours playing and failing, getting frustrated with the Wii U Pro Controller controls and menu interface.

The faux difficulty only because of the weapon durability, and then the inventory being full way too fast all served to frustrate me to no end.

The bland emptiness that was Hyrule on my trip to Kakariko Village felt boring, and then the screech of the woman in the clothes shop every time I bought something annoyed me further.

A lot of design issues and tedium was not what I imagined from a Zelda game, and if this is the future of what's in store for Zelda then I will say goodbye to the franchise and thanks for the memories.
 
The bland emptiness that was Hyrule on my trip to Kakariko Village felt boring, and then the screech of the woman in the clothes shop every time I bought something annoyed me further.
.


I figure it be the sensor ability tha would annoy people first before the shriek of a shopkeeper. :P

But you have very valid points. I said this before, most of the problem with the game or the opinions in general is just my idea but i think is the fact is called legend of zelda. If the game was called anything else.... adventure time, it may be completely different perspective of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: megabug7
....right, so that's why I said Bloodborne is a 10/10 for me and didn't imply you.
Yeah sure, they all improved on a foundation and were better for it but they were by no means groundbreaking and mostly derivative of things that came before it. I'm not discrediting these games, derivative is not a negative term in my books but I would certainly argue none of the games I mentioned (except kinda sort of Fallout 3) defined a genre.
MGS3 is a great game but if you take away the bells and whistles it still shares the fundamental DNA of MGS2 it's just more refined and polished. It wasn't some earth shattering Mario 64 masterpiece that redefined the boundaries of what was possible in games it was just a truly great polished game. I would point to MGS1 as "genre-defining" I would point to MGS3 as "also great if not better".
My only real point here was that I don't agree with your standards for what qualifies a 10/10, there's no set criteria for a game being perfect for someone, Resident Evil (remake) when played on a Gamecube with tank controls is honestly in my opinion the best game ever made. Taste is subjective, nothing is perfect and sometimes something derivative can just be really damn good.
Hey, that's fair. On the bright side, you seem to enjoy great games, so there's some common ground here. As for taste being subjective, that's also true, but only to an extent. Just because taste is subjective doesn't mean that all opinions are valid, there's a reason why words like "connoisseur" and "philistine" exist. There absolutely is such a thing as "poor taste", a lack of appreciation for finer things in life, but fortunately you don't seem to have that problem, you're just a little bit more lenient with your scores. My suggestion is try reviewing games yourself, full-on "pen and paper as you play" shtick so that you don't miss anything. Such a methodical approach makes you look at them differently, perhaps that'd shed some light on why others seem so "harsh" sometimes. If you look at the broad picture, you see less imperfections than when you look at individual elements while holding a magnifying glass. Some would argue that it makes you enjoy them "less", others say the opposite, so all I can tell you for certain is that it's a different kind of gaming, even though it doesn't sound like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: farmin
Hey, that's fair. On the bright side, you seem to enjoy great games, so there's some common ground here. As for taste being subjective, that's also true, but only to an extent. Just because taste is subjective doesn't mean that all opinions are valid, there's a reason why words like "connoisseur" and "philistine" exist. There absolutely is such a thing as "poor taste", a lack of appreciation for finer things in life, but fortunately you don't seem to have that problem, you're just a little bit more lenient with your scores. My suggestion is try reviewing games yourself, full-on "pen and paper as you play" shtick so that you don't miss anything. Such a methodical approach makes you look at them differently, perhaps that'd shed some light on why others seem so "harsh" sometimes. If you look at the broad picture, you see less imperfections than when you look at individual elements while holding a magnifying glass. Some would argue that it makes you enjoy them "less", others say the opposite, so all I can tell you for certain is that it's a different kind of gaming, even though it doesn't sound like it.

Oh for sure, poor taste is most definitely a thing and I think the industry has proven that repeatedly with games that sell exceptionally well but are poorly received critically and forgotten about within a year or two. Very true not all opinions are valid, I'd still argue that provided you are able to critically analyze, identify and properly communicate why you like or dislike certain aspects of a piece of media you're entitled to that opinion and that opinion is valid.
I wouldn't call myself lenient, I can tell you why I think Bloodborne or REmake is a 10, I could argue you were lenient with New Vegas but as we both seem to agree we have good taste and are able to articulate our thoughts well I think you could give me plenty of reasons at to why NV is a 10.
Funnily enough I actually wrote a lot on a personal game review blog for a couple of years, I would by no means call myself a good critic (or even just "a critic") but I feel like it was quite formative in shaping a lot of my opinions in gaming. You're right there, I think it's a great thing to do to help improve how you approach and think about games and you learn to appreciate some games you might not have given a shot to at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4
Review sum up:

Reviewer likes poo, he was expecting poo. Nintendo delivers a nice steak on his platter. He cannot apreciate steak, then goes on to complain it's not poo, implying Nintendo is putting everyone else on the payroll because no way they like steak more than poo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: piratesephiroth
lol what a retarded review.
"because when your Master Sword “Runs out of energy (AKA breaks), it'll recharge after 10 minutes. But that's simply something that shouldn't happen in any game"
That childish mentality might get you a job at buzzfeed, pal

You should probably get back to your dumb sony games for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: netovsk
Everytime i see this page, it takes longer to load for some reason, and i keep getting notified of this. I dunno how to turn it off. I can't find a unfollow button anywhere. :wtf:
 
  • Like
Reactions: omegasoul6
lol what a retarded review.
"because when your Master Sword “Runs out of energy (AKA breaks), it'll recharge after 10 minutes. But that's simply something that shouldn't happen in any game"
That childish mentality might get you a job at buzzfeed, pal

You should probably get back to your dumb sony games for now.
I'm sorry that he takes offense to the fact that the ultimate weapon in Hyrule and destroyer of all evil that was forged eons ago with ancient and forgotten magic runs on cheap Chinese AA's, buddy.
 
I'm sorry that he takes offense to the fact that the ultimate weapon in Hyrule and destroyer of all evil that was forged eons ago with ancient and forgotten magic runs on cheap Chinese AA's, buddy.
Maybe A 9V battery or D Battery? Or the sword from no more heroes, except you can't just shake it to charge it up like the beam sword. :P
 
Oh for sure, poor taste is most definitely a thing and I think the industry has proven that repeatedly with games that sell exceptionally well but are poorly received critically and forgotten about within a year or two. Very true not all opinions are valid, I'd still argue that provided you are able to critically analyze, identify and properly communicate why you like or dislike certain aspects of a piece of media you're entitled to that opinion and that opinion is valid.
I wouldn't call myself lenient, I can tell you why I think Bloodborne or REmake is a 10, I could argue you were lenient with New Vegas but as we both seem to agree we have good taste and are able to articulate our thoughts well I think you could give me plenty of reasons at to why NV is a 10.
Funnily enough I actually wrote a lot on a personal game review blog for a couple of years, I would by no means call myself a good critic (or even just "a critic") but I feel like it was quite formative in shaping a lot of my opinions in gaming. You're right there, I think it's a great thing to do to help improve how you approach and think about games and you learn to appreciate some games you might not have given a shot to at all.
You're not alone. Bloodborne is easily a 10/10 for me as well. I loved pretty much everything about it. The camera acted weird during the boss fights sometimes, but other than that I thought it was close to perfect.
 
Maybe A 9V battery or D Battery? Or the sword from no more heroes, except you can't just shake it to charge it up like the beam sword. :P
The point is that it's not a lightsaber - charged or not, the blade is still there. I can whack something with it, it's a piece of steel for God's sake. Here's how you resolve this stupid issue - you make the sword really powerful when charged and just a normal sword when the charge is depleted, and in order to recharge it, you have to conquer a shrine and recharge it on a special pedestal at the end, so that the player has an incentive to visit the shrines in the first place. Job done, and at least it's not stupid.
 
The point is that it's not a lightsaber - charged or not, the blade is still there. I can whack something with it, it's a piece of steel for God's sake. Here's how you resolve this stupid issue - you make the sword really powerful when charged and just a normal sword when the charge is depleted, and in order to recharge it, you have to conquer a shrine and recharge it on a special pedestal at the end, so that the player has an incentive to visit the shrines in the first place. Job done, and at least it's not stupid.
But you can find an explanation for the current behaviour as well. It might be that the spells could destroy the sword if used after beeing emptied of "magical power" because they don't magically deactivate themselves or something and that the spells then drain the energy from the physical sword (energy~mass).
 
The point is that it's not a lightsaber - charged or not, the blade is still there. I can whack something with it, it's a piece of steel for God's sake. Here's how you resolve this stupid issue - you make the sword really powerful when charged and just a normal sword when the charge is depleted, and in order to recharge it, you have to conquer a shrine and recharge it on a special pedestal at the end, so that the player has an incentive to visit the shrines in the first place. Job done, and at least it's not stupid.
You say that as if more heats and a bigger stamina gauge isn't an incentive
 
Remember when we used to get comments along the lines of "you guys just want free games and are not used to it so you are extra generous"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4
Remember when we used to get comments along the lines of "you guys just want free games and are not used to it so you are extra generous"?
I call those the Before Yokai Watch years, or simply the BYW era.
But you can find an explanation for the current behaviour as well. It might be that the spells could destroy the sword if used after beeing emptied of "magical power" because they don't magically deactivate themselves or something and that the spells then drain the energy from the physical sword (energy~mass).
Or you could make it "not stupid" and stop interrupting combat. I shouldn't have to invent excuses for the game's mechanics, they're either good or they're not.
You say that as if more heats and a bigger stamina gauge isn't an incentive
The stamina bar is stupid as-is in BOTW's implementation and hearts are irrelevant in a world with enemies that can one-shot you anyways.
 
Man there are a lot of A) bitter and B) elitist haters in this conversation. I was under the impression that people played videogames to have fun, but this game has successfully separated out those who instead play to criticize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Monado_III
I call those the Before Yokai Watch years, or simply the BYW era.
Or you could make it "not stupid" and stop interrupting combat. I shouldn't have to invent excuses for the game's mechanics, they're either good or they're not.
The stamina bar is stupid as-is in BOTW's implementation and hearts are irrelevant in a world with enemies that can one-shot you anyways.
I have 15 hearts out of a possible
30
I literally can't get one shot anymore unless I take all my armour off (which has been upgraded once out of a possible
4
times using extremely common items so it's not late game armour by any means) and don't try and block or dodge attacks, even then most monsters can take 10 or so hearts off but only a few actually can one shot me if I try and gimp myself.

Does gbatemp have a way to simply black out text instead of creating the ugly new lines for each spoiler?
 
The stamina bar is stupid as-is in BOTW's implementation and hearts are irrelevant in a world with enemies that can one-shot you anyways.
I sat and thought about it, and I honestly cannot think of the last time an enemy "one-shotted" me in BotW. You must only have a handful of hearts, crappy armor, and are playing around in the wrong area (which is, by the way, obvious if you want to pay attention to what the game suggests to you).

I wonder if a lot of people here really just aren't that good at the game and don't have the persistence to stick with it. It's hilarious, because for years, people have complained about the hand-holding and the lack of difficulty in Zelda games -- and now that a game has that difficulty (and is totally fair about its implementation, to boot), the other crowd comes out of the woodwork to complain. :-D
 
Zelda games on NES is hard. Not sure about Zelda "Master quest" But first zelda had cryptic information and 2 quest, and zelda 2 is just as cryptic and hard. Master quest is basically Super mario bros Lost levels, or Legend of zelda ocarina of time (Lost puzzles) :P
 
Zelda games on NES is hard. Not sure about Zelda "Master quest" But first zelda had cryptic information and 2 quest, and zelda 2 is just as cryptic and hard. Master quest is basically Super mario bros Lost levels, or Legend of zelda ocarina of time (Lost puzzles) :P
Haha! Yes, MQ was challenging. In fact, I still have a sealed copy of that promotional disc it came on...
 
This game isn't that difficult unless you progress to areas you shouldn't be at just yet with your current armor and hearts. The weapon durability doesn't exactly make things harder, for certain types of people it's a glaring inconvenience. Even once you get used to it, this little tick is still there, and the "low" scorers can't possibly ignore it like the 10/10ers can. The 8-9/10ers just see it as a more minor setback, one i'd agree with.

There's always the issue of subjectivity and objectivity in these things. Normally reviewers have to be subjective in their opinions, and back up their claims with objective evidence. Unfortunately the objectivity in these reviews are often ignored, and it comes down to "HE'S A HATER! LYNCH HIM."

In that case, I recommend Robfozz's review (http://gbatemp.net/review/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild.563/) as he clearly states his bias as a Zelda fan, giving the frenetic nintendo supporters here something more to empathize with, while giving it a lower than average score (6.9). He clearly states his bias and expectations for a zelda game (some of his viewpoints are shared by Tom and Jim), and why he'd give it a "low" score. What I'm trying to insinuate by referring to this review is that a low score doesn't automatically qualify you as a nintendo hater or prick in general, as even a fan of the series who ALSO enjoyed the game gave it a low score.

When it comes to user reviews, you can expect the bias, and probably should welcome it and you should as well, as this is a review that could really say something to you and you can relate to it. GBATemp official reviews lean towards (and can be considered) professionalism, so if there's something disagreeable it immediately comes off as hatred or general disdain for the game as a whole, despite the reviewer mentioning several times that he enjoyed the game. The "why"s of the "low" score often flies by the head of the dissenters, as it often isn't something they can easily relate to. All my assumptions, of course, after reading these messages.

So, to all the people criticizing this review, or extremely unhappy and vocal about this review, I recommend you look exclusively at user reviews, at least the in-depth ones, as at least their opinions as diehard zelda gamers can be sympathized with, whether their views on the game are negative or positive.
 
The ultimate conclusion from this review is that basically some people got too used to play Minecraft and GTA with cheats and want all games to have immortal heroes with access to infinite resources.
 
Good luck getting 13 hearts in 4 or 5 hours... I don't see that as being something anyone but speedrunners would be able to do.
And you know there are hints to where to find all the memories at the various stables, right?
While I agree with a lot of this review, some of the points are simply wrong.
 
I have been playing for a couple of days already and I've made my mind about the game.
I love this game. For me it would be around a 9.
 
Occasionally such things can be used for humour but I did not see that here. At the same time I do not see the contradictions. Care to elaborate?
 
Interesting video, I will have to disagree with things and expand on some others.

On linear difficulty I do have to mention games that do not use regenerative health, say the original doom where you have health pickups and may well open a door that at full health would be doable but not at barely survived the last fight levels. Not amazingly relevant here but something to think about.

"Can't have end game weapons"
One of the more interesting complaints about fallout 3 degradation concerns was the laser weapons. You can find one early on but it is very damaged, owing to the way the game works this rendered it about on par with a conventional pistol. Going back further I played a game called Draken. It was not open world per se (it is old enough that it was fairly free roam but still broken down into levels) but you could pick up fairly decent things if you went off the beaten path from time to time, though they would not last long.

So the game breaks with conventions. While stereotypes are not ideal they do exist for a reason, so do certain conventions. A viable* weapons repair, dulling mechanism/enchantment mechanism (with projectile weapons this tends to be ammo
Going more subtle so a master bowman appears. Guess what all those intelligent and coordinated enemies start bringing shields for a while and thus a spear becomes a more viable weapon for you. There are more subtle ones as well like putting the path of least apparent resistance/most direct to where you want to go and making it home to a less intelligent enemy that is stronger against another type you might previously have been facing.

*viable =/= easy. I hate to use Monster Hunter as an example but the forging aspect there could provide some inspiration.

Alternatively, and as a counter to the why no come back in ? hours and it will be reforged. We are doing weapons for the guards, we can not spare much for you. All able to work without breaking the game, and all make it far more palatable to the would be players. Another more subtle one, if weapon slots are to be valuable maybe have the player discard them similar to an idle action, or have a mechanism to sit and rest with the weapons out on the ground (take a load off and all that) but only pick up the serviceable weapons by default when you cancel rest mode.
You don't even need to make things infinitely repairable -- nobody likes the "I saved the day" story half as much as "I was trying to save the day and my weapon broke and everything got set on fire" story.

"picking up early game weapons allows me to save for hard/boss fights".
Is boss hoarding a good thing? While not a fatal fault it is something several would strive to avoid if we are talking good game design.

None of this excuses an aesthetic or logical dislike either, though I suppose that was not your argument. It does not cover the pause to select weapon jerking you out of combat (primary and sidearm, backup weapon... all terms hundreds of years old).

Others already mentioned possibly having things like misuse damage be a thing-- hard attack a blocking enemy rather than harry them/feint/something not hard attack and lose weapon durability. Having my screw up break a weapon is far nicer than having something break merely because I had the audacity to use it. Granted that would make the weapons as consumables nature of things harder to enforce but if it is the devs going for that rather than trying to trick me into some variety then I have other problems. Just like that you have a deeper combat system as well, and people keep trying to tell me this is wonderful and creative and physics based.

I am not necessarily of the no weapon degradation camp, though they have some persuasive arguments, but I see serious flaws in this system and thus I still have to question the design decisions of the weapon degradation system.
 
*viable =/= easy. I hate to use Monster Hunter as an example but the forging aspect there could provide some inspiration.
Monster Hunter is garbage and can't be used as a standard for anything. The series is overall terrible and much more a test of patience (and gullibility) than of ability.

Your point is basically "I'd rather do the same thing over and over instead of constantly having to think of new ways to overcome the game's challenges"
 
I am the last person to be standing up for Monster Hunter -- on paper it is a lot I want from a game, in practice (and this includes late stage saves, videos, cheats, guides and more) the game bores me to tears. I don't really have a problem with games that were never going to be good but failed potential is my mark for a bad game.
That said I would have to disagree at some level with your assessment, at least of those I did play. If by patience you meant drop rates then sure, if by patience you meant the stamina management then not so much.

Though if the game wants to skip the middle man and have me go farm specific weapons rather than some materials, or maybe kill some monsters to unblock a supply route. I am not calling for a 50 gold, instant repair, back in the dungeon model of something like Diablo, and there could still be some consumable weapons, but the option to invest in something would be nice.

A lot of things here were variously done in Majora's Mask. The sword upgrades which at first were a temporary buff of sorts, maybe have a return of the thief (or to go with the resting idea maybe have something like those gnomes from golden axe).
 
I finally beat the game today.... I'd give it 8/10 myself. Weapon durability, samey dungeons, and a few stupidly annoying quests detracted from the experience, but I really enjoyed the game. I especially enjoyed Hyrule castle - it actually felt like a real dungeon!

Plenty of room for improvement as a game, but the important thing is that I had fun and would probably buy and play it again when I eventually get myself a Switch. Maybe in December when the DLC is due?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Social_Outlaw
It's just amazing to me how many people can play a game of this quality and nonchalantly assign it a pedestrian score. I guess that's why there are professional critics and fan critics...

Enjoy it, folks, because we won't be seeing many more like this one. In my 30 years of gaming, it's a legitimate diamond in the rough...
 
  • Like
Reactions: piratesephiroth
Good review, fellow temper; but no one ever mention the absence of cooked meals / created potions recipe list in the game... Annoying to not have one, quite very much!! Here wishing for an update.... Then, perhaps Ignis spoiled me? :/
 
Good review, fellow temper; but no one ever mention the absence of cooked meals / created potions recipe list in the game... Annoying to not have one, quite very much!! Here wishing for an update.... Then, perhaps Ignis spoiled me? :/
I believe this was intentional so that the player would need to experiment and simply throw together ingredients as they logically saw fit.
 
The Weapon durability and the Shrines are so eh... I've played almost every Zelda game but sadly never finished one, but I was thinking this was gonna change with BOTW but nope it's kinda hard to get over these two flaws. The shrines are way to easy to beat and how many times you can use a weapon before it breaks is just silly. This Zelda game should've had Link Dual wield weapons, and see which way the enemy would Swing so you can block precisely and at least lose a bit of durability for grade A performance.

The E3 build vs Now is great progress but I expected to much from Ninty :unsure:
 
The Weapon durability and the Shrines are so eh... I've played almost every Zelda game but sadly never finished one, but I was thinking this was gonna change with BOTW but nope it's kinda hard to get over these two flaws. The shrines are way to easy to beat and how many times you can use a weapon before it breaks is just silly. This Zelda game should've had Link Dual wield weapons, and see which way the enemy would Swing so you can block precisely and at least lose a bit of durability for grade A performance.

The E3 build vs Now is great progress but I expected to much from Ninty :unsure:
This is a pretty weak argument. It's like saying Street Fighter is bad because it doesn't have blood and fatalities.
 
This is a pretty weak argument. It's like saying Street Fighter is bad because it doesn't have blood and fatalities.
I don't want my weapon to break every 10 to 20 seconds, that gets irritating you know, and if you played Skyrim dungeons (which has very similar dungeons) you should know what I mean besides that, it's a pretty solid title. I wouldn't say it's a weak argument either when the core elements are hitting you directly in the face.
 
I don't want my weapon to break every 10 to 20 seconds, that gets irritating you know, and if you played Skyrim dungeons (which has very similar dungeons) you should know what I mean besides that, it's a pretty solid title. I wouldn't say it's a weak argument either when the core elements are hitting you directly in the face.
That's because BotW actually requires you to think and plan ahead. Enemies have weak points, you can sneak up on them and land a super strong sneakstrike and even kill them with other objects or even not kill them at all.
You're just mad because the game isn't holding your hand the whole time.
 
That's because BotW actually requires you to think and plan ahead. Enemies have weak points, you can sneak up on them and land a super strong sneakstrike and even kill them with other objects or even not kill them at all.
You're just mad because the game isn't holding your hand the whole time.

I just killed 2 of the divine beast? I like competition but those two things bug me but eaches own I guess.
 
I just finished the game. (story + a large chunk of optionals) And i agree with your points entirely.

Things i liked

  • Aesthetics, just gorgeous imagery at times.
  • Different weapon types
  • The 4 big puzzle dungeons were immensely fun.
  • The rune abilities.
  • General gameplay & combat gameplay. Worked really well.
  • Cooking is really fun.
  • Lots of clothing outfits is really nice.
Things i disliked
  • Shrines & korok seeds. Every thing you accomplish in this game is going to reward one of these two things. And you always know which of the two it will be beforehand. Once you realize this it kills the fun of exploration and doing sidequests entirely. "Oh gee i just did a big quest chain! wonder what i'll get. Oh, a shrine" "Oh a little tiny puzzle/oddity here wonder what i'll get. Oh a korok seed." Side quests should've opened up far far more. Enhanced abilities (instead of just buying them) access to some nice new places. stuff like that.
  • Weapon durability. I get why the game needs this, but it really sucks the fun out of it. For example i fight a Lynel, get a Lynel weapon. Go fight another Lynel. Weapon i just got from previous lynel is broken just from that one fight. It just doesn't feel worth it.
  • The storyline. It's just crap. Repetitive cliched easily forgotten crap. The individual town story quests were alright, but on the whole "meh".
  • Final boss. Seriously? That's how easy it is? And you get nada for it? No nice cutscene to see the world change, no postgame at all? No reward? Just crap too.
  • That sword quest. Again, that's it? Just locked behind a certain amount of hearts? Lazy and lame. (i suppose these last 3 sort of go together)
  • The difficulty is quite erratic.
  • Guardians. Only real way to deal with them is shield return their blast or ancient arrows. There should be a better way to deal with them.
  • Far too little variation in enemies. There's only like 10 types of enemies? going off of top of my head small goblin, big goblin, lizafos, wizards, jellies, bats, guardians, octoroks. Oh and at night skeletons. as for mini bosses there's the golems, giants and lynels. And i'd only really count lynels as mini bosses. and then there's color/strength variations. It just gets very dull very quickly. This is one of the biggest disappointments i have in the game.

How could it be improved in future?

  • DLC can add some more story content in the game
  • Weapon repair. It'd be great if you could repair weapons with materials. Even if you had to sacrifice other weapons to restore durability it'd be worth it to get to keep weapons you actually like.
  • A fishing rod.
That's just my thoughts on this good game. I would not have given it the 10's it has gotten. An 8 ish is what i would've given it. 8.5 maybe.
 
@dimmidice I read your post and I'm glad i did, for some reason when you mentioned weapon repair i instantly thought of Super glue. :P

Of all the things in hyrule to find from defeating enemies, glue or some sticky stuff isn't one of them Lol. Though the fact remains there is different elixer that help with stuff like heat, cold, stamina, speed, stealth. I was thinking maybe one exist for Time limit unlimited durability or something. :unsure:

Still one thing i do dislike is trying to get rupees, besides gambling, seem like finding ingredients, making food and selling them is only way to make money, which you need a lot of sometimes, or doing quest, which i hate the most. Cheap pay off for finding some materials isn't fun especially when you have work hard to find them and pay off little.

Honestly i wanna finish the game but i'm not motivated. I stopped after a week when blaster master zero was released. I'll consider if dlc is worth investing in or if they made some fixes to the game. I usually hate unfinished games, but this isn't at the top of my priority list even if i have only 3 games on switch.:ninja:
 
What i did for rupees was hit ore spots at death mountain a lot. gems and luminous stone sells for a bunch.
 
What i did for rupees was hit ore spots at death mountain a lot. gems and luminous stone sells for a bunch.
I guess, but you like need money to get a suit from there to stay there without potion for time limit, which is a problem, buying clothes for specific places was a bit expensive before you figured out how to make money faster. No smashing pots like other games. :P
 
I guess, but you like need money to get a suit from there to stay there without potion for time limit, which is a problem, buying clothes for specific places was a bit expensive before you figured out how to make money faster. No smashing pots like other games. :P
You might already know but you can get the fireproof armor (chest piece) a bit before goron village from a hylian in exchange for 20 lizards which you find under rocks nearby.
 
So this is the infamous GBATemp review...
Welcome to the Thunderdome. Be careful as you tread through here, there are pacifiers strewn across the floor and the stepping stones are still covered with an inch of salt from the tear ducts of Nintendrones.
 
Welcome to the Thunderdome. Be careful as you tread through here, there are pacifiers strewn across the floor and the stepping stones are still covered with an inch of salt from the tear ducts of Nintendrones.
Don't do that, it gives people the idea that the review was written for the sole purpose of eliciting a reaction rather than expressing an honest opinion. Even I have a comment I regret in this thread (Nioh is a pretty good game), but a 7 for BotW still doesn't sit right with me either. It's by no means a 10/10 game, but it is an 8 at a minimum IMO.
 
Did we have a proper worldwide standard made for review scoring when I was not paying attention? Also is 7 not a good score? If 10 is top numbers and 0 is bottom then 7 is rather above average, and about where I would expect a largely by the numbers open world game that does not bring much new to the concept, suffers many of the same flaws as the concept frequently sees (not saying you can't tell a well paced, directed and driven story in open world but it is not common that they do), lacks much in the way of compelling content (can you reasonably recall the general ebb and flow of 5 shrines you really enjoyed? Same question for any Zelda dungeons in what are now far older games), some questionable design choices (the breaking weapons model for one) and at the time of review a fair few optimisation issues and bugs which served to mar play.
Again compared to what I saw in the earlier trailers Nintendo did quite well -- many other notable devs without much experience in the concept have tried and failed hard at open world, and said earlier trailers did not inspire confidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chary and Foxi4
7 is well above average, the average being 5. At the point of release, when this review was written, the game was very flawed. Some of the flaws have been fixed in subsequent patches, which proves that the criticism within this text was both accurate and worth addressing. 7 was a perfectly acceptable score for the game, it was only controversial because we're talking about Zelda, a series with a cult following. An opinion is an opinion, if you can't handle someone not liking a game you really like, or not liking it as much as you do, to be more accurate, then that's not a problem with the reviewer - that's a problem with you. I think the piece was written honestly and in good faith, I don't think we should treat Nintendo games any differently than games made by other developers. If anything, I find scores of 9-10 to be far more suspicious as those scores should normally be reserved for all-time classics that define their generations and their respective genres.
 
It should also be noted that though you can strive to review with objectivity, every review will slightly reflect the opinion of the reviewer. That's why you should keep certain reviewers in mind, and find ones that align with your personal taste. Tom, Foxi, and I are known to give scores well under the average, while Scarlet and Daisies might go a bit higher. We all try to give games a fair score; it just depends on what our respective idea of a fair score is.

As far as BOTW goes, I still think this review wasn't too critical, overall. It also shows that in the end, giving a game a number really makes people just see it for the score alone.
 
It does have consequences as well as equally embarrassing. Both sides thought each other as dumb, raging hard on presenting their edgy takes, only to leave bad tastes on them throats.

Personally I love it. This drama. Though I can see the site taking a hit as being a joke for the reviews after this dropped. Well for some people. It's a bit sad and weird but I guess it's worth the show lol. The cynical sides, the sarcasms. I just can't.
 
This has to be one of the dumbest, worst written reviews I've read. Remind me to never trust GBAtemp reviews. Good thing you weren't paid to write it, because I'd feel bad for the GBAtemp staff for throwing away their money.
 
This has to be one of the dumbest, worst written reviews I've read. Remind me to never trust GBAtemp reviews. Good thing you weren't paid to write it, because I'd feel bad for the GBAtemp staff for throwing away their money.
Lazy criticism, lacks any type of analysis and reads more like an outburst of feelings from a broken heart. Not a worthwhile read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: invaderyoyo
Review cover
Product Information:
  • Release Date (NA): March 3, 2017
  • Publisher: Nintendo
  • Developer: Nintendo
  • Genres: Action, Adventure, Open-world
  • Also For: Nintendo Wii U
Game Features:
Single player
Local Multiplayer
Online Multiplayer
Co-operative

Reviews

  1. Step into post-apocalyptic Northern Finland in Rauniot, Act Normal Game’s debut point-and-click title. Let’s click away!

  2. Australia-based indie developer Drop Bear Bytes’ debut title, Broken Roads, launches today on PC and consoles. Does this new cRPG have what it takes to stand toe-to-toe to its contemporaries?

  3. Ereban: Shadow Legacy is Baby Robot Games’ debut title that merges classic stealth mechanics with a fast-paced ability to merge with shadows. Should you allow it to sneak into your PC gaming library?

  4. South Park is back in the gaming sphere with the followup to Obsidian’s hit duo of RPGs, South Park: Snow Day!

  5. Capcom’s latest JRPG, Dragon’s Dogma 2, takes you on a mediaeval fantasy adventure as The Chosen One. Should you take on this quest?

Site & Scene News

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    You could say the same for a couple or so threads that used to be popular, I guess.
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    I mean. All I ask was for people to see if ONE, SINGLE website is working properly in edge. 1000 people see it but cant be bothered at all
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    Ready to just leave this place anyway. The amount of shit talking and bullying behavior that goes unchecked is crazy. No where else do I see this shit towards me and others. Not even on reddit have I been talked to like I have here by other members
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    @RedColoredStars, I did read the last sentence in your post by the way. Maybe try changing the privacy settings in your browser to standard if that works.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    I've also heard that Chromium-based browsers will stop working with ad-blockers.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Please dont go we need you.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    I really learned not to give a fuck what others do online it's helped ease my mind try it sometime.
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    @SylverReZ That reply to you was when we werent on good terms. lol. I tried everything. Changing privacy settings etc.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Fuck Chromium. Firefox 4evar.
    +1
  • Veho @ Veho:
    (Firefox 4 now, anyway. Let's see if they pull some crap too.)
    +1
  • DinohScene @ DinohScene:
    Netscape ftw
    +1
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Funny enough went to download chrome Bing gave error installed Firefox fine
    +1
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    Thing is , the videos work fine in the Edge Dev and Canary builds. But whatever the fix they made was, has never been pushed to Beta or Stable builds. Its been that way for as far back as I tested. Which was Edge 84. They are on 125 now.
    +1
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    @RedColoredStars, Yeah, and I was in quite a mood at that time. I would consider choosing Firefox or Opera instead, been using Firefox for over 7 years now than Chrome.
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    Tried contacting Nintendo to see if they can reach out to MS about it. But Nintendo said the videos are working fine. Without enough people saying no, they don't work fine, it will never get fixed.
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    I have Firefox and used it for many years. But Edge runs noticible faster on my pc at both opening and loading pages.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    I don't think Nintendo will know anything about troubleshooting Edge. They mostly do technical support regarding their console family.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Tell them you downloaded their trailer without permission
    +2
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Good one, Ken.
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    Right. But they could create a ticket that gets forwarded to the proper team. I think Nintendo would care that their videos aren't working on a major browser
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    LOL K3N. HAHAH!
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    My left eyes hitting random pain for whatever reason allergy cold bring it on
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    Dont know why FF is slower on my pc either. Tried all the "speed up firefox" tricks but notta.
  • RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars:
    In good news... I get to pick up my kittys ashes today.
    RedColoredStars @ RedColoredStars: In good news... I get to pick up my kittys ashes today.