Oh, I misread your original point then, sorry about the misunderstanding and thanks for the follow-up!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Complete Breath of the Wild critique from a Game Dev perspective
- Thread starter thomasmahler
- Start date
Oh, I misread your original point then, sorry about the misunderstanding and thanks for the follow-up!
this is a good post. I was trying to think of a polite way to put this as well but I'm awful with words sometimes haha.
basically there's no one right way to do things and certain aspects of one genre may not translate to another, which I feel is a point that has eluded the OP consistently throughout this thread as can be seen with the countless examples and the rationale that one game does thing therefore breath of the wild needs to do thing as well.
Do you just cherry-pick which posts you reply to? The last time you quoted me and I replied to you, you still have not addressed it and that was the second time it happened. I'm interested in discussion but not if you're going to promote discussion by only addressing ones that you feel you can make a comment about. Aside from that, you are STILL propping up LttP as this holy grail and not only am I just not seeing it, but you're only making vague comments. You'd make sure that every minute you spend in the game has amazing level design? How? Please share with the class.
"Just imagine LttP in 3D and extrapolate from there." is pretty much what he has been saying for pages now.
Kaiser Swayze
Member
I can't go along with the "nothing to do" crowd just because an area is large and not exploding with gamey-game stuff in every square inch. Riding a horse across the plains IS doing something. Just like when I was playing Red Dead Redemption. Just like when I would ride a motorcycle and listen to the radio in Vice City. If I'm engaged in the game and the world, I don't mind quiet moments in between fighting/jump/crafting/puzzle-solving.
Schopenhauerian
Member
I would just note: arguments that make reference to specific preferences that are allegedly shared by a majority of folks can be greatly improved by the systematic collection of empirical evidence.
My previous post mentioned one such effort (additional details here and here), and I know that Nintendo themselves employed systematic methods of collecting empirical evidence of gamer preferences, during the development of Breath of the Wild.
thomasmahler
Member
Well, I can't really share my empirical evidence, but I've been making games and been testing my designs over the better part of a decade now with lots and lots of folks and within Microsofts User Research Department during Ori's development and after some time you sorta understand what clicks for people and what doesn't. I'd even go as far as saying that there's a certain formula to fun and we just haven't really figured out the formula yet - but it's there. We're all doing things without knowing exactly what the math is in the background, but everything's based on certain rules and your brain lights up when certain conditions apply and doesn't when they don't.
I think it'd be super interesting for people to see how we went about level design, how we tested certain levels with folks, then got some bad comments about them, changed them to be more dense or changed the focus and suddenly those levels were the testers favorites... That's why I'm naturally spotting certain problems we encountered and figured out how to fix when I'm seeing those problems in other games.
My whole job every day is to analyze spaces that aren't fun yet and to fill them up with stuff that people enjoy, so I do often have a bit of a 'been there, done that' attitude when I see issues in games
darkazcura
Member
Off the bat, I'll tell you that I'm usually not a fan of open world games because open world games (that I have tried) are generally too hand holdly and tell you where everything is. In those games I do not really understand the point of a large map if I know where everything is. It ruins the sense of discovery.
Zelda doesn't have that issue. It has a huge open world. It has empty pockets. But all of that makes the sense of discovery off the charts. It's awesome to stumble upon things because of how uncommon it almost is, and it feels like a true adventure because of that. That's all the appeal is for those who love the scale and open world in this particular game.
Large open spaces with puzzles upon puzzles in an adventure game feels more out of place to me to be honest.
Same.
Well, I can't really share my empirical evidence, but I've been making games and been testing my designs over the better part of a decade now with lots and lots of folks and within Microsofts User Research Department during Ori's development and after some time you sorta understand what clicks for people and what doesn't. I'd even go as far as saying that there's a certain formula to fun and we just haven't really figured out the formula yet - but it's there. We're all doing things without knowing exactly what the math is in the background, but everything's based on certain rules and your brain lights up when certain conditions apply and doesn't when they don't.
I think it'd be super interesting for people to see how we went about level design, how we tested certain levels with folks, then got some bad comments about them, changed them to be more dense or changed the focus and suddenly those levels were the testers favorites... That's why I'm naturally spotting certain problems we encountered and figured out how to fix when I'm seeing those problems in other games.
My whole job every day is to analyze spaces that aren't fun yet and to fill them up with stuff that people enjoy, so I do often have a bit of a 'been there, done that' attitude when I see issues in games
As a person working all day on data-based inference of human behavior:
You are putting far, far too much faith on this.
Well, I can't really share my empirical evidence, but I've been making games and been testing my designs over the better part of a decade now with lots and lots of folks and within Microsofts User Research Department during Ori's development and after some time you sorta understand what clicks for people and what doesn't. I'd even go as far as saying that there's a certain formula to fun and we just haven't really figured out the formula yet - but it's there. We're all doing things without knowing exactly what the math is in the background, but everything's based on certain rules and your brain lights up when certain conditions apply and doesn't when they don't.
I think it'd be super interesting for people to see how we went about level design, how we tested certain levels with folks, then got some bad comments about them, changed them to be more dense or changed the focus and suddenly those levels were the testers favorites... That's why I'm naturally spotting certain problems we encountered and figured out how to fix when I'm seeing those problems in other games.
My whole job every day is to analyze spaces that aren't fun yet and to fill them up with stuff that people enjoy, so I do often have a bit of a 'been there, done that' attitude when I see issues in games
With all due respect, you're replying to a post that links to another post detailing exactly how Nintendo tested and iterated on their designs. If you haven't yet, I'd highly recommend watching the BotW team's GDC talk or the Making of video series. It's a bit weird to see you take such a "been there, done that" attitude with the developers of this game as if they are complete novices in game design.
Many posters in this thread have been asking you to clarify exactly what your solution to Breath of the Wild's problems would look like, and extrapolating A Link to the Past in 3D isn't a real answer. Furthermore, they did this already in Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask and developed the formula from there until ... now, basically.
You keep describing areas of emptiness and at 90 hours into the game, I haven't seen much of it. Sure, there are times that I've gone somewhere only to not find much of interest, but these moments are surprisingly few and far between and are generally preceding something much more interesting just a few minutes away.
These moments of quietness and solitude are not only necessary to juxtapose the game's points of interest, they are part-and-parcel with selling the idea of being a lone adventurer in a vast world, forging your own path — and not just the illusion of forging your own path, but actually charting your own route, looking around for secrets and being willing to be sidetracked into the unknown.
If this isn't what you're looking for in the first place, it seems strange to me to criticize how they achieved it. You are projecting your own design methodology onto a genre of game to which it's basically inapplicable. Sure, I would've liked more variety of things to discover, but I don't think the density of things to discover is the issue.
SporeCrawler
Member
id be okay with the map being so big if it had instant travel without loading.
thankfully the loading isnt as bad as some other openworld games but still its no xenoblade
also you can really see that they have built the game with the wiiu tablet in mind but backpaddled out of it due to the switch docked mode (you could do everything on switch tablet mode i guess). with a touchscreen the item selection would be much more seemless.
really devaluates the game as a zelda game for me.
if this was assassins creed id be happy but as a zelda game im not so satisfied.
the biggest criticism however... no green hat.. like seriously nintendo? you lock this behind some amiibos?
Dont get me wrong. the game is really masterfully crafted and I dont agree with a lot of things OP has posted here. It hinkt he high praise the game has been getting is justified. The game is full of things to do and the beauty of it is you can just leave it be if you choose to. However I really wonder if this is a Zelda game.
thankfully the loading isnt as bad as some other openworld games but still its no xenoblade
also you can really see that they have built the game with the wiiu tablet in mind but backpaddled out of it due to the switch docked mode (you could do everything on switch tablet mode i guess). with a touchscreen the item selection would be much more seemless.
also no real dungeons
if this was assassins creed id be happy but as a zelda game im not so satisfied.
the biggest criticism however... no green hat.. like seriously nintendo? you lock this behind some amiibos?
Dont get me wrong. the game is really masterfully crafted and I dont agree with a lot of things OP has posted here. It hinkt he high praise the game has been getting is justified. The game is full of things to do and the beauty of it is you can just leave it be if you choose to. However I really wonder if this is a Zelda game.
thomasmahler
Member
The green tunic and green cap is definitely in the game and you don't need an amiibo to get it
Your argument is flawed because because BotW gives you horses and fast travel. Try adding those to mario 64 then what would you do next? Say it with me - widen the level!!Well, I think it's fairly objective to say that if I just create a big terrain in Unity, pop a character in and let you walk through it without me also putting in cool ways of interactivity, you'd be bored out of your mind. That's what level design is all about, that's how games are built: You fight the empty spaces and try to make every spot as fun and interactive as possible.
Yes, there are some folks who enjoy 'empty' games like Proteus or No Man's Sky, but I'd argue that for the large majority of folks out there, running around in empty spaces isn't very fun and yes, Breath of the Wild did have quite a lot of empty spaces. Imagine I'd take a level from Mario 64 and just scale it up to be twice the size. Now you run around a LOT more and you need twice as long to finish the level - but that actually makes the game worse, since you're now dealing with a huge swaft of empty spots instead of tight level design that's been hand-crafted for the character and the controls in the game.
So that's where that leaves us. To a very small minority, just moving around in a virtual space might be fun enough, but since open world games are under heavy fire right now for often times being too big and not respecting the players time, I'd definitely argue that people still appreciate actual, good level design
And further more you're simply projecting your playstyle opinion. Maybe some of us want to walk a bit further? Anyone saying a bridge is too long or too short is their subjective opinion.
For a player who enjoys traveling across the landscape either on foot or horse back just to take in the scenery and pick mushroom, fish or hunt the empty space is much appreciated.
I actually have an amazing time simply riding around the open grasslands and looking at the world in BotW.
Less is more and diminishing returns are concepts that have merit.
From another perspective, myself and others at [game studio name redacted] have been talking nonstop about how crazy great Nintendo's tools must have been in order to create a world that feels as custom as it does. While the things you find are sometimes repetitious (15+ different styles of Korok puzzle, which are not uniformly brainless, does put other open world games to shame though), the way you are interacting with the world is actually in how you observe it and find those things.
When I pick a place to go, the environment is constantly drawing my attention to its little quirks. I don't find myself just holding the analog forward, but rather being constantly distracted to go this way or another. The fact that every Korok and shrine has had to have the environment altered to support its gameplay and draw the player's attention while exploring seems like it implies the exact opposite of the careless terrain blocking that the OP describes.
For example, a race Korok I did the yesterday had its stump nestled in some suspicious trees while paragliding from one mountain range to another. When activating the race, the ring appeared as a clear shot through the trees to a lower level. I tried paragliding, but it was too slow. It turned out there was a shieldboarding course cut into the mountain that gave me the speed I needed to get down. The environment needed to support the shieldboarding, have the sight line, and be filled with a slightly awkward set of trees that drew the eye.
I think the OP's criticisms are valid if you are looking at this as a gamey-ass video game, where fun per inch is an appropriate metric. I don't think BotW is one of these, and its tone requires a lot of downtime to support it. The fun is punctuated by a lot of quiet, exploring and looking around. I +1 the value of white space in this game. I actually feel it's a little too dense sometimes, which can reduce the feel of wandering/loneliness.
When I pick a place to go, the environment is constantly drawing my attention to its little quirks. I don't find myself just holding the analog forward, but rather being constantly distracted to go this way or another. The fact that every Korok and shrine has had to have the environment altered to support its gameplay and draw the player's attention while exploring seems like it implies the exact opposite of the careless terrain blocking that the OP describes.
For example, a race Korok I did the yesterday had its stump nestled in some suspicious trees while paragliding from one mountain range to another. When activating the race, the ring appeared as a clear shot through the trees to a lower level. I tried paragliding, but it was too slow. It turned out there was a shieldboarding course cut into the mountain that gave me the speed I needed to get down. The environment needed to support the shieldboarding, have the sight line, and be filled with a slightly awkward set of trees that drew the eye.
I think the OP's criticisms are valid if you are looking at this as a gamey-ass video game, where fun per inch is an appropriate metric. I don't think BotW is one of these, and its tone requires a lot of downtime to support it. The fun is punctuated by a lot of quiet, exploring and looking around. I +1 the value of white space in this game. I actually feel it's a little too dense sometimes, which can reduce the feel of wandering/loneliness.
Beyond your critiques themselves your attitude comes across as flippant. It seems like you think it was easy to make BOTW and easy for you to improve it. I'm sure neither are true. Second, as a developer, I'm surprised you aren't more appreciative of how much BOTW gets right. Most developers speaking on BOTW seem to acknowledge how much of a massive achievement BOTW is in game development, even with its flaws. Your attitude towards what it does right seems dismissive. There is room for critique but your critique seems rooted in "I could have done it better" which is really silly sounding coming from someone who hasn't made a BOTW scale game or from a developer in general.Well, I can't really share my empirical evidence, but I've been making games and been testing my designs over the better part of a decade now with lots and lots of folks and within Microsofts User Research Department during Ori's development and after some time you sorta understand what clicks for people and what doesn't. I'd even go as far as saying that there's a certain formula to fun and we just haven't really figured out the formula yet - but it's there. We're all doing things without knowing exactly what the math is in the background, but everything's based on certain rules and your brain lights up when certain conditions apply and doesn't when they don't.
I think it'd be super interesting for people to see how we went about level design, how we tested certain levels with folks, then got some bad comments about them, changed them to be more dense or changed the focus and suddenly those levels were the testers favorites... That's why I'm naturally spotting certain problems we encountered and figured out how to fix when I'm seeing those problems in other games.
My whole job every day is to analyze spaces that aren't fun yet and to fill them up with stuff that people enjoy, so I do often have a bit of a 'been there, done that' attitude when I see issues in games
Well, I can't really share my empirical evidence, but I've been making games and been testing my designs over the better part of a decade now with lots and lots of folks and within Microsofts User Research Department during Ori's development and after some time you sorta understand what clicks for people and what doesn't. I'd even go as far as saying that there's a certain formula to fun and we just haven't really figured out the formula yet - but it's there. We're all doing things without knowing exactly what the math is in the background, but everything's based on certain rules and your brain lights up when certain conditions apply and doesn't when they don't.
I think it'd be super interesting for people to see how we went about level design, how we tested certain levels with folks, then got some bad comments about them, changed them to be more dense or changed the focus and suddenly those levels were the testers favorites... That's why I'm naturally spotting certain problems we encountered and figured out how to fix when I'm seeing those problems in other games.
My whole job every day is to analyze spaces that aren't fun yet and to fill them up with stuff that people enjoy, so I do often have a bit of a 'been there, done that' attitude when I see issues in games
But you've never made a game in the scale of BOTW, so how can you say that you've "been there, done that"?
I'm a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Texas and 4 other states. Just because I design substations and relay settings for a living doesn't mean I can fully dissect the construction and flaws of a coal/gas fired power plant. Just because you've developed smaller games, maybe you can be a little critical at the tip of this massive iceburg, but for me to say, "Well, I design substations and the design of this massive power plant is shit" is awful.
Fun per inch seems so close to bullshit checklists on what most developers/publishers do and just a stone's throw away from a game being done by survey panels. Regardless, it might work in a 2D game where you can actually measure the game in inches but it doesn't work when the scope of your game is in miles.
I will add that while I don't agree with the OP's criticism of BotW, I think a new Zelda game more in the vein of what he is describing would be welcome after BotW did what it was going for so well.
Going back to ALttP/OoT style plus all the system advancements in BotW would be cool. Not as much my style, but cool.
Going back to ALttP/OoT style plus all the system advancements in BotW would be cool. Not as much my style, but cool.
I think you could argue a game like Mario 3D Land is designed to maximize fun per inch, so it's not totally bullshit. Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here.
Gotdatmoney
Member
It's a fine metric in the sense of, "is what I am doing actually fun?" For every few mins or w/e of gameplay. Like if you have played Mario Maker you'll see that designing shit around mechanics while keeping it fun is difficult as fuck.
I understand the sentiment but all it really means is "is this engaging"? I don't really think BoTW is not engaging. Most of the time you are doing something of note. That is where I disagree with him.
It's also way more difficult to create an open world and have it 100% engagomg 100% of the time. I think it's impossible for obvisous reasons tbh.
The old template has been made obsolete with BotW. It showed how obscure, unbelievable and non-interactive previous Zelda game worlds were, both in 3D and top down games, and how much focus was placed on small key hunts, asinine non-natural puzzle setpieces and ever more obscure item gimmicks to support more puzzles.
Avoiding the "more of the same" phenomenon is why any direct sequel to BotW should probably refrain from just trying to replicate or top BotW's size. Even if such a hypothetic squel doubled the world size, doubled the amount of mini puzzles, doubled the enemy variety, it would be "just more of the same". Especially if it again revloved around the same three characters of Ganon Zelda and Link and played in Hyrule, ticking the same environmental checkboxes. If such a sequel instead created its own identity, e.g. going for a more prominent story angle, decreased the world size in favor of a more specific type of world with certain quirks supporting an independent story (e.g. MM vs. OoT), it could avoid being relegated to BotW's shadow too much.
I think you could argue a game like Mario 3D Land is designed to maximize fun per inch, so it's not totally bullshit. Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here.
It's also a linear as hell, level based jump'n'run game playable in 5 to 15 minute bursts, not a game that attempts to create a coherent, halfway believable world. The latter however is good form if you want to support a narrative that goes beyond "princess kidnapped by turtle, plumber jumps across colored blocks and saves the day". Different tasks require different tools.
I think you could argue a game like Mario 3D Land is designed to maximize fun per inch, so it's not totally bullshit. Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here.
3D Land is not what I would describe as an open world game, that's what I was implying. I can edit if need be.
It's mostly impossible but just imagine a 3D open world game where every minute there is something to do no matter which direction you go in throughout the whole game. That sounds exhausting.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
This. I really like the game a lot, but I can't put it above the other 3D console Zeldas. I'm just not as into freedom and exploration as the people who truly love BOTW and view it as one of their best gaming experiences. I'm more into more linear games, with stronger narratives these days. And when it comes to Zelda the dungeons were always my favorite part of the games, and I just tried to power through the overall world stuff and sidequests to get to them. So the lack of true dungeons hurts BOTW for me as well.
Still, I was over 50 hours when I beat it, having gotten all the memories (with guide help as I didn't have the patience to keep getting hints from the stable guy), 17 hearts, beat the 4 Divine Beasts, and over 60 hours now as I'm still enjoying exploring areas of the map I didn't really visit etc. So that's a statement to its quality given its kept me engaged despite not being a game design that's not really my cup of tea these days.
But still, I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did Horizon as that game had a lot more purpose. It had a big, beautiful world to explore, but my exploration was more guided through objective markers which I prefer to open exploration. It also had one of the most engaging story and characters in gaming for me, which kept me wanting to go. And it looks incredible and isn't plagued by the framerate issues (especially docked, and in areas like Korok Forest) that hurt BOTW for me.
So I do love the game in many ways, but it's far from my favorite of the series, and won't be my GOTY as something will have to dethrone Horizon for that crown. I readily note its quality and appreciate what the developers achieved. It's an amazing accomplishment. It just took the series in some directions that don't mesh with my personal preferences is all. And that's fine. Not every installment of every game has to be tailored for me.
I applaud them for trying something new when my biggest gripe with Nintendo has long been their trend of pumping out sequels with minimal innovation in between the big changes every few years (like moving Zelda from 2D to 3D etc.). Hopefully the next Zelda game keeps a lot of the great things about BOTW but brings back some of the things I loved about past games like true dungeons with a lot of variety in setting etc.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
I love this thread. All these well thought out opinions are so good to read.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
This is an unfair assessment in my opinion. This thread is moving quite fast, so some posts will not get fully responded to and if there is something where one cannot make a comment on, what do you expect?
I seriously doubt this is true, at least without variables that are outside the games themselves. For instance, for me, it is imperative for games to be easily accessible (i.e. simple controls, no needlessly complicated systems) and to offer an interesting challenge to be enjoyable. Give me something like Dark Souls or Gran Tousimo on the one hand or like Sims or Animal Crossing on the other hand and I just cannot enjoy it at all and hate every second of it. I still believe when people say they love Dark Souls, GT, Sims or AC though. I see no reason to say this is wrong and seeing my wife play 100 hours of Stardew Valley with a happy face tells me: She has a lot of fun, whereas she cannot stand Sonic for being to fast and twitchy. At the very least, there are several models to take into account.
Thomas never said it's easy to do, just to imagine. And there is a huge gap between those two.
In the reckless appraoch you need food or many hearts though. I know, because I refuse to cook or buy consumables when there is a way around it. Cold weapons are not sufficient to prevent burn. You can use them to stand heat (e.g. in the desert, which I did), but not burn.
Sorry more point was more like "the gating off in ALttP is not a necessity born out of the general world design, but it is a consequence of a structural decision over the game, as evidenced by ALBW, which shares a lot of the general world design".
Because Banjo-Kazooie is a 3D game that contains nine fully open worlds. They are individual proofs of how super-densely packed open world design can look like. Similar to the ALttP comment above, I don't want to say it is easy, but it is certainly possible to take this basic way of creating 3D open worlds and to create full connected worlds with that. On N64 this was technologically impossible and Banjo-Kazooie would also not be improved by sticking the individual worlds together, but it would still work well and without any significant "pockets of emptiness" in them.I also really don't understand citing Banjo Kazooie (which to be clear/safe, I also love) in the context of a discussion about open-world design, as I feel they're aiming for very different objectives, but it looks like again, we'll agree to disagree
We were at two posts of mine that he has not yet addressed and my last one makes three. While the thread is moving quickly it is not so fast as to get lost and buried within minutes. I would expect the OP who made the thread to be able to make a comment or response to elaborate his position of which I (and many others) have asked of him beyond "LTTP but in 3D! :O :O :O :O" If he can't manage that then this thread really has no interesting critique from a game developer perspective which again, was his basis of the thread.
When you decide to make a open world game some pockets of emptiness are going to be necessary. Unless you want the game to be stuck in development forever. The comparison to Banjo Kazooie makes no sense. Banjo and 3D Mario games have completely different design philosophies from Breath of the Wild.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Don't equate Banjo and Mario here. Mario is clearly objective based, Banjo is not.
The Futurist
Member
I've gone back and forth on open world games over the years, but I really enjoyed it in this Zelda.
While it's true that there is a lot of empty space in the game, there is no area where you can't visibly see something to interact with.
Whether that be a shrine, or an enemy base, or some random secret. How much enjoyment someone gets out of those things is completely subjective, but after 50 hours, I'm still finding new things in the world.
Even if it's something completely random that takes two minutes to get through.
For example :
It was something I randomly came across in a strange area I happened to find while exploring.
I like the idea of travelling around in a world and seeing something in the distance and making my way towards it. Zelda is full of that feeling.
While it's true that there is a lot of empty space in the game, there is no area where you can't visibly see something to interact with.
Whether that be a shrine, or an enemy base, or some random secret. How much enjoyment someone gets out of those things is completely subjective, but after 50 hours, I'm still finding new things in the world.
Even if it's something completely random that takes two minutes to get through.
For example :
I was climbing some random mountain and came across a heart shaped pond with a guy on one side and a gerudo woman on the other. It was a little side quest that took maybe 3 minutes of going back between those to people.
It was something I randomly came across in a strange area I happened to find while exploring.
I like the idea of travelling around in a world and seeing something in the distance and making my way towards it. Zelda is full of that feeling.
Mario 64 and Banjo have way more in common than Breath of the Wild has with Banjo.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
They do, but when I gave Banjo as an example of how very dense open world design can look like, I was not saying "Zelda is like this", because it obviously is not, I was just saying that it has been done on a smaller scale already, in Banjo, with a great result. It has not really been done with Super Mario 64, so it is important to differentiate between those two in this discussion.
I'm really enjoying my time with BotW, but I agree with many of the points OP brought up.
I don't really think that BotW is a revolutionary open world game...let's put it this way....the rest is just doing a bad job sometimes. Does anyone remember GTA3? This game had collectables, too. Collecting the money stashes actually gave you QoL features in the vein of BotW. In GTA 3 you could pick up/buy weapons, but when you died in the OW, those weapons were gone. So collecting 5/10/15/20... stashes gave you free weapons at your hideout. I don't get how such a simple and motivating feature has completely vanished from the genre. Is it so hard to give the player a meaningul reward for collecting 100 feathers? What Nintendo basically did with BotW is putting limits on the player that can be lifted by completing tasks (shrines, seeds).
Topic switch: What I would like to see in a open world game to make it revolutionary is changing the basic geometry of the maps and how the main objective is put into context of that world. Every open world map is designed like one big land-mass (or several of them), the player is put somewhere in the middle of the map and will zick-zack and backtrack this map/or maps.
So, how about going with a simple main objective like travel to that far away point and throw the ring...you'll maybe get the point. A starting point A and a goal B with various detours, choke-points and so on to create something that in concept is linear but offers so much potential for new experiences: for example you go west at some point and it will give you a different playthrough compared to someone who went east. Basically stretching and branching a typical OW world map would do wonders. Nier Automata may not be the best example, but at core it has an interesting concept...it has (to some degree) the interconnectivity of DS1 with vast open spaces. I would like to see more of that with bigger budget.
I don't really think that BotW is a revolutionary open world game...let's put it this way....the rest is just doing a bad job sometimes. Does anyone remember GTA3? This game had collectables, too. Collecting the money stashes actually gave you QoL features in the vein of BotW. In GTA 3 you could pick up/buy weapons, but when you died in the OW, those weapons were gone. So collecting 5/10/15/20... stashes gave you free weapons at your hideout. I don't get how such a simple and motivating feature has completely vanished from the genre. Is it so hard to give the player a meaningul reward for collecting 100 feathers? What Nintendo basically did with BotW is putting limits on the player that can be lifted by completing tasks (shrines, seeds).
Topic switch: What I would like to see in a open world game to make it revolutionary is changing the basic geometry of the maps and how the main objective is put into context of that world. Every open world map is designed like one big land-mass (or several of them), the player is put somewhere in the middle of the map and will zick-zack and backtrack this map/or maps.
So, how about going with a simple main objective like travel to that far away point and throw the ring...you'll maybe get the point. A starting point A and a goal B with various detours, choke-points and so on to create something that in concept is linear but offers so much potential for new experiences: for example you go west at some point and it will give you a different playthrough compared to someone who went east. Basically stretching and branching a typical OW world map would do wonders. Nier Automata may not be the best example, but at core it has an interesting concept...it has (to some degree) the interconnectivity of DS1 with vast open spaces. I would like to see more of that with bigger budget.
But Zelda was always like that. Finding the optional heart pieces has always been in every iteration of the Legend of Zelda series, this one is just different by completing shrines instead of looking for them.
Go and try the Goron area first and see how much more work you have to do to complete it with 3 hearts. But the game doesn't stop you and you can totally do it.
I've read Thomas' critique of BotW as well as Hollow Knight. Thomas is concerned with fast pacing and maximizing content within a given area. That's fine, and that's his mantra, but it should not be seen as the objectively correct way to do things.
For my own personal enjoyment, emptiness can have plenty of merit. It can make the world feel more realistic or immersive, and can enhance the sense of discovery.
What is important to me is that I have a reason to explore of my own volition. Zelda and Hollow Knight accomplish this very well. I can discover things that I will not find by simply following a quest marker.
What so many games get wrong is that they do not give the player any reason to explore. Take The Witcher 3 for example. You can find anything of interest by just following quest markers and by checking off "collectibles" (i.e. treasure, monster dens) off the map. As a result, you never really interact with the world...you simply end up following a GPS and treat the world as scenery. This is what makes an open world feel lifeless.
For my own personal enjoyment, emptiness can have plenty of merit. It can make the world feel more realistic or immersive, and can enhance the sense of discovery.
What is important to me is that I have a reason to explore of my own volition. Zelda and Hollow Knight accomplish this very well. I can discover things that I will not find by simply following a quest marker.
What so many games get wrong is that they do not give the player any reason to explore. Take The Witcher 3 for example. You can find anything of interest by just following quest markers and by checking off "collectibles" (i.e. treasure, monster dens) off the map. As a result, you never really interact with the world...you simply end up following a GPS and treat the world as scenery. This is what makes an open world feel lifeless.
Astral Dog
Member
Just make ALTTP 3D! its soo easy guys!
Basileus777
Member
That's basically what 3D Zelda was before BOTW and the game is so refreshing in large part because they're not trying to recreate ALTTP in 3D anymore.
Feeroper
Member
Well, that's what this thread is for. Artists getting critique for their work is what helps push the artform. If an artist can't handle critique, he should find another job, really. Back when I was a character artist for the industry, I'd beg to get feedback from other great artists just so I'd learn more and more.
I'm a huge fan of Breath of the Wild, it's a great game, but this thread should be all about: "Okay folks, here we have a great game, but where does it fall apart and how could it have been an even better game?" - Those are discussions that are probably going on in a lot of development studios right now, since Breath of the Wild upped the ante.
Seeing this as me being petty or shitting on Nintendo is just silly. I love Nintendo, I'm inspired by Nintendo, but is Nintendo untouchable? No and they shouldn't be. I want to see Nintendo making fantastic games, we'll take some inspiration from them and try to make better stuff and in turn that'll inspire other devs again to copy from us, etc. That's how artforms evolve.
Critiquing someone elses work is NOT putting them down. It's trying to give helpful feedback in order to help them grow. It's sad if everyone is so touchy that we can't even help each other anymore to strife for something better because everyone's offended so quickly. Don't be offended for Nintendo, they'll be fine. And if they hear what fans want, they might just give you exactly that - Which Breath of the Wild has proven in spades
Hey,
I want to preface this by saying I really enjoyed Ori and certainly respect your opinion. I am not a game developer so I speak from an inexperienced angle in that regard.
However that said, this thread has been pretty well-behaved in my opinion, but I think some of your comments appear to be getting a little touchy. You have asked for a discussion and critique of BotW but are pretty quick to shoot down anyone else's differing opinion. You have also stated that you really enjoyed the game but have also left a number of comments that make it sound otherwise as well. This may just be a case of being unable to read the intended tone in your replies. Obviously it is fine that you have some criticisms, and certainly from a game development standpoint you can make arguments from a unique angle, but ultimately it is all subjective.
For what its worth, I agree with most of your critiques, for instance the shrines all looking the same. The only one I significantly disagree with is about the open world. This is one of the rare times where I think the size of the world and content within struck the perfect balance. Prior to this game I would have never guessed that it could be done with such a master stroke like this. As opposed to many open world games, I feel like every inch of the world has been lovingly handcrafted. I feel like they do have secrets waiting everywhere. For me, it really feels like this is the game I would fantasize about as a child playing ALttP, but figured that would never truly get made.
Nothing is perfect of course, but for me this game truly lives up to it's 10/10 scores, and I think in a decade or 2 when looking back on this generation, BotW will stand head and shoulders above most everything else as a landmark.
That is just my opinion as a game player (not developer), and I respect that there are many who disagree. I also know that no matter how good this game is to me, there is always room to improve for future so it is certainly a good conversation to have.
Lest we forget, the concept of maximizing content within a given area gave us the mind-numbing, overwhelming checklistfest of Rise of the Tomb Raider.
There is no sense of discovery or special content in that game, precisely because it overwhelms you with content-per-square-foot.
It tacks in missions, challenges, side quests, more collecting, more crafting, more more more. And it all crumbles under the weight.
There is no sense of discovery or special content in that game, precisely because it overwhelms you with content-per-square-foot.
It tacks in missions, challenges, side quests, more collecting, more crafting, more more more. And it all crumbles under the weight.
Nah, compare BotW to let's say HZD. In HZD you can sprint forever. While playing BotW you'll often go through the simple thought process "I need to do more shrines, so I can sprint longer, or do more jumps when climbing, not getting one-shotted". That's the trick. No judgement on my behalf if that's a good or bad thing. It simply works, but I don't regard this as a revolutionary gaming design concept. Just putting on display how the game's systems work. I honestly wouldn't give a shit about the Korok seeds if they didn't increase my inventory that always feels to small - carrot and stick.
In HZD, you can sprint forever but can't climb mountains to get a better view of the entire over world.
In HZD, you need to complete trivial side quests and kill random monsters to gain XP to survive late game.
There is no sense of discovery whatsoever in a game that has no "empty spaces".
How should there be in the first place? It's the fact that something special compared to its surroundings and missable, that turns it into a discovery in the first place. But the packed world some people advocate here cannot provide discovery. You are let from content A to B without any space inbetween, you won't discover anything. You'll just follow the content.
I think someone mentioned wanting to see what Mark Brown would think of Breath of the Wild. Well here it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmIgjAM0uh0
Pretty interesting thoughts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmIgjAM0uh0
Pretty interesting thoughts
I like this video, makes a lot of great points, especially about open world linear games which I believe HZD, WD2, etc are.
Can we pls have a civil discussion without people instantly feeling the urge to defend game x?
Read my posts itt again. Never did I say that HZD is doing something better than BotW. I was just pointing at one difference and how it plays out.
...and what's trivial in the context of obtaining upgrades is highly subjective. Some people prefer killing 100 things others prefer doing 100 light riddles to get there.
Mark Brown is the bomb. He's very succinct and thorough with his analyses.
Turn off the icons. Wow how about that.
Not to mention many of the treasure chests that hold recipes and diagrams arent marked on the map.
BOTW feels like it has a mmo quality to it yet without the actual mmo aspect which I hope makes sense. When playing the game, it feels more like stepping into a world than playing a traditional gamey game. This is what the pacing and space help to facilitate. But this also fits my personality type. I'm all about the experience not a huge completionist.
Additionally regarding the open space and fun per inch bit, this would be true if your thinking of user experience as it relates to game enjoyment is one dimensionally. First what does "fun" mean in this context. You can arrive at a player having fun in many different ways which seems to be what botw strives for. Fun in relation to the open space seems to be all about gaining the users attention, triggering curiosity, push and pull between tension and relaxation, etc. I think Nintendo looked much deeper at what's going on internally with the layers of player engagement than most developers. A problem I have with the op's perspective is that he burned through the game really fast compared to the majority of players, many of whom will not approach that level of completion. If you design with these things in mind much of the design choices make more sense imo.
Additionally regarding the open space and fun per inch bit, this would be true if your thinking of user experience as it relates to game enjoyment is one dimensionally. First what does "fun" mean in this context. You can arrive at a player having fun in many different ways which seems to be what botw strives for. Fun in relation to the open space seems to be all about gaining the users attention, triggering curiosity, push and pull between tension and relaxation, etc. I think Nintendo looked much deeper at what's going on internally with the layers of player engagement than most developers. A problem I have with the op's perspective is that he burned through the game really fast compared to the majority of players, many of whom will not approach that level of completion. If you design with these things in mind much of the design choices make more sense imo.
I didn't mind how large the world was, my issue was that combined with some other elements, it was a bit clear some areas they had no idea what to do, so they threw a bunch of enemy bases in them. Wouldn't hurt to have some settlements or side quests where you can rebuild some of the ruins that Wizzrobes are running around in.
The village ruins in the snow area to the north west probably should have been a legit village and not another enemy stomping grounds.
The village ruins in the snow area to the north west probably should have been a legit village and not another enemy stomping grounds.