Support NeoGAF

[BluePikmin11]

To give my perspective on this video, in my opinion, the way Jim approaches Zelda fans in his video isn't the best way to solve the problem. He's only rallying more angry Zelda fans. You have to understand, at the least, why Zelda fans feel this way, regardless of how they behave. It goes for all fanbases in general.

To give a score of 7 and then proceeding to respond how childish those Zelda fanboys are is kinda an immature way to handle a situation. Yeah, he explains his situation with weapon durability well, but his proceeding discussion after could've been handled WAY better.

It's better to not waste time talking about fanboyism in a video, because that's just how communities are going to be. It's what you expect and you understand that. It is better to not say anything than respond with "Zelda fans don't deserve my positive talking points about Breath of the Wild." But it's part of Jim's personality I guess. That's my personal stance.

 

[toddhunter]

The only other game I can think of with a similar weapon degradation system is Dead Rising but I don't remember any sort of pushback when it was used then. Personally I think weapon degradation works wonderfully for both games and compliments their other gameplay systems well. What is it about Zelda that has people pushing back against this gameplay mechanic?

There is a reason games don't feature prominent weapon degradation. It is pointless busy work and people probably care about it now in Zelda because it would otherwise be a good game.

Simply give people the option at the start of the game, or at worst give them an option to feed other weapons into good ones. Boom, nobody in their right mind would choose to have their weapons keep breaking and this whole flawed mechanic vanishes again for another 10 years.

And no removing it wouldn't "break the game", just like it has made the souls series better by fading away. Zelda would simply be better too and that should be something the fanbase wants rather than being angry at the suggestion of imperfection.

 

[Kthulhu]

How many times do I have to say the exact same thing? Jim Sterling has a Patreon and merchandise as a way of making a living; he uses Jimquisitions and his website in order to drive attention and, therefore, revenue towards those two things. If people stopped giving him money he would stop creating videos so, therefore, the videos are monetized. Do street performers not monetize their performances because you don't have to pay to watch/listen to them?

He has tons of videos that have nothing to do with outrage surrounding him. Such videos are pretty far apart.

If you can prove that the amount of money he gets fluctuates based on videos about backlash he makes, then perhaps I'd believe you.

 

[qko]

If it hurts so much to use some precious weapon, just buy the house in Haetano Village and upgrade some Weapon Mounts, that way you can show off that you got X weapon.

 

[Gravy Boat]

How many times do I have to say the exact same thing? Jim Sterling has a Patreon and merchandise as a way of making a living; he uses Jimquisitions and his website in order to drive attention and, therefore, revenue towards those two things. If people stopped giving him money he would stop creating videos so, therefore, the videos are monetized. Do street performers not monetize their performances because you don't have to pay to watch/listen to them?

Jim doesn't benefit from 'clicks' the way most other youtubers do though. If someone else puts up a 'controversial' review or video, they actively make money from the people going there to hate on them and give them abuse. Jim doesn't, he only gets paid if people willingly give him their own money because they want to. He doesn't lock content behind a paywall or anything, he's basically living on charity. If he put stuff like this out for 'clicks' it's be in his best interest to make everyone happy, not piss off a very vocal group.

 

[LotusHD]

There is a reason games don't feature prominent weapon degradation. It is pointless busy work and people probably care about it now in Zelda because it would otherwise be a good game.

Simply give people the option at the start of the game, or at worst give them an option to feed other weapons into good ones. Boom, nobody in their right mind would choose to have their weapons keep breaking and this whole flawed mechanic vanishes again for another 10 years.

And no removing it wouldn't "break the game", just like it has made the souls series better by fading away. Zelda would simply be better too.

It is still a good game though...

 

[Nepenthe]

Love the metacritic quote, who tha fck gives about Metacritic.

All of the people who were mad that BotW even achieved a 98 at all under the belief that reviewers were only doing so because all 50+ people and organizations were biased in such a way that their own subjective and emotional experiences are flawed representations of what the game actually is. I mean, were we also not around to see the user reviews flood in with a bunch of 1's to try and combat the game's critical reception?

It always strikes me as odd that "bias" is implied to only go in one direction, that people can only love Zelda irrationally and not hate it irrationally, that caring about MetaCritic is only a bad thing when fans of a particular title do so, and the praise cannot result in an equivalent backlash if there is a dissonance in feeling left out of something.

 

[SpiceMelange]

Problem is, what exactly is "late game" in Breath of the Wild? Due to its completely open nature, their really is no such thing. I mean, even Hyrule Castle doesn't really count since you're able to just go in at any time and jus tleave, so it really wouldn't work.

Like, maybe as a reward for beating the game I guess? Or as a sort of New Game+ mode, like what you get access to in NG+ in Xenoblade Chronicles. But otherwise, due to the game being completely open world, I'm not sure how such a system would work since no matter where it would be you could easily make a beeline for it and just rely on it for the entire game.

Late game is when silver variants monsters starts to spawn.

 

[Szadek]

How many times do I have to say the exact same thing? Jim Sterling chooses to use Patreon and merchandise to make his living; he uses Jimquisitions and his website in order to drive attention and, therefore, revenue towards those two things. Every video and review of his has links towards those two revenue streams. If people stopped giving him money he would stop creating videos so, therefore, the videos are monetized. Do street performers not monetize their performances because you don't have to pay to watch/listen to them?

The difference is that only people that actually like his content give him money.
A million angry Zelda fanatics aren't worth a single cent.

 

[guek]

Please explain how you think a person who gets ddos attacks, hacking attempts, and death threats over a review or statement thinks that it's a good idea to do it again to get attention.

You just answered the question. It's not like this is the first time people have invoked hate to gain attention on the internet. I 'aint saying it's logical but people often aren't.

The only person a spite-score helps is someone looking for justification of utterly hating someone.

That's what spite is, yes.

 

[Acerac]

Jim doesn't benefit from 'clicks' the way most other youtubers though. If someone puts up a 'controversial' review or video, they actively make money from the people going there to hate on them and give them abuse. Jim doesn't, he only gets paid if pee willingly give him their own money because they want to. He doesn't lock content behind a paywall or anything, he's basically living on charity. If he put stuff like this out for 'clicks' it's be in his best interest to make everyone happy, not piss off a very vocal group.

His interest would be to make his patrons happy, not everybody. Why would he care about the people who were not going to give him money either way if he can increase his income from those who may?

 

[aBarreras]

There is a reason games don't feature prominent weapon degradation. It is pointless busy work and people probably care about it now in Zelda because it would otherwise be a good game.

Simply give people the option at the start of the game, or at worst give them an option to feed other weapons into good ones. Boom, nobody in their right mind would choose to have their weapons keep breaking and this whole flawed mechanic vanishes again for another 10 years.

And no removing it wouldn't "break the game", just like it has made the souls series better by fading away. Zelda would simply be better too and that should be something the fanbase wants rather than being angry at the suggestion of imperfection.

huh?

you dont get to decide was it is better or not

you dont like it, fine

but you dont get to decide if it is better or not

 

[Gravy Boat]

I really think anyone who feels any kind of annoyance at his score should be embarrassed of themselves. If someone else not liking a game as much as you do actually upsets you, you are a sad and pathetic person.

 

[Rodin]

Sure the rain and the hot/cold areas shouldn't exist, why don't we just streamline and trivialize everything about the game

Here's another great idea: why don't we put footsteps on the field to show you where your quest objective is, so you don't have to go through the hassle of exploring? Also remove the environmental puzzles so that you don't have to do that bullshit thing called "thinking"

There is a reason games don't feature prominent weapon degradation. It is pointless busy work and people probably care about it now in Zelda because it would otherwise be a good game.

Simply give people the option at the start of the game, or at worst give them an option to feed other weapons into good ones. Boom, nobody in their right mind would choose to have their weapons keep breaking and this whole flawed mechanic vanishes again for another 10 years.

And no removing it wouldn't "break the game", just like it has made the souls series better by fading away. Zelda would simply be better too.

Are you even looking at the posts (or even better, the arlo video) that explain why THIS PARTICULAR GAME needs weapons durability? There was nothing in the Dark Souls gameplay that needed weapon durability, that's why it's better without it. Same goes for Witcher 3, it's fucking useless there. That doesn't mean that Breath of the Wild works or should work like those games.

 

[Holiday]

lol this victim blaming

 

[blankempathy]

You guys do realize that people enjoy watching Jim call people out and for that they may be more inclined to donate to him?

 

[Lindsay]

The Master Sword is in this game to? Same ol' Zelda! With all the weapon types in the new game is there a legendary version of each one? Like a Master Mop, Master Spear, etc?

The only other game I can think of with a similar weapon degradation system is Dead Rising but I don't remember any sort of pushback when it was used then. Personally I think weapon degradation works wonderfully for both games and compliments their other gameplay systems well. What is it about Zelda that has people pushing back against this gameplay mechanic?

He did say that it could kinda maybe work / make sense for survival / horror games cause you're supposed ta be underpowered. That fits the original Dead Rising I think? Does it fit a series which for 30 years never had limitations like this? Doesn't seem like it.

The prevailing thought on why degradation in BotW is good is because it promotes variety and forces you to try out weapons you wouldn't normally use. Well, why not design the enemies so that you need to use the majority of weapon types to succeed? This monster is weak to blunt damage so using a sword will do miniscule damage to its health. This monster is weak to piercing damage so if you don't use a spear, the fight will take 10x longer. Doesn't that promote using a variety of weapons? If the enemies are designed around that, it doesn't matter if you're carrying the ultimate most powerful sword in your inventory. It's not going to do squat against the enemy if its strong against bladed weapons.

Cause that'd suck? And cause just as much menu fussing whenever around groups of baddies with different weaknesses each.

 

[shadow2810]

Oh before I forget here's one mechanic I don't like about the game,

Spoiler

getting thunderstruck so easily with shitty weather, that's bullshit alright.

Spoiler

fyi you can unequip metalic armor/weapons to avoid thunder

 

[Volphied]

Freedom is always an illusion. The game has loads of freedom but there are always game rules. You are always forced to do something a certain way no matter what. The game is about unfettered exploratory freedom but that doesn't really apply to the combat, nor does it have to.

Then maybe the fanboys ought to stop repeating how full of freedom the game is, when it's obviously "just an illusion". Otherwise it feels like they're being deceitful.

That doesn't mean you have to like those combat constraints though. I can understand wanting the ability to repair weapons or at least manually increase a weapon's durability but personally don't find it necessary when the game constantly throws good weapons at you.

That's fine. Some people like it. Some don't. But can we at least agree that the people who don't like it have a right to voice their opinion without getting death threats and DDoS attacks? Can we agree that when a reviewer doesn't like a certain game mechanic, it doesn't mean he's a "hater" who needs to be removed from Metacritic?

Can we agree that there's nothing wrong with giving it a 7/10 and saying that it's a good game that one can have a lot of fun with, as long as one tries to deal with the botched implementation of weapon durability?

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

People are fucking idiots. Even if you want to go down the "he gave it a 7 for attention!" path, what the fuck is your point? Idiots are trying to hack him over a fucking Zelda review. There is no rationalizing this response and trying to wave it off with "he should have known" is beyond fucking nonsense.

 

[Plum]

He has tons of videos that have nothing to do with outrage surrounding him. Such videos are pretty far apart.

If you can prove that the amount of money he gets fluctuates based on videos about backlash makes, then perhaps I'd believe you.

So you agree that 1) he monetizes his videos and 2) he makes videos surrounding him and, therefore, does not "hate" the controversy surrounding them?

And of course I can't prove it, but what I do know is that controversy is Marketing 101; from Milo to South Park, from Apple's 1984 Super Bowl Ad to Jim Sterling's provactive tweets about 'Nintendo fanboys', it's a tactic as old as advertising itself. If you look at his most viewed videos you'd see that three out of 5 videos are based on controversy surrounding himself. If you look at his most recent videos you'd see that, recently, they haven't been far apart. His last 5 Jimquistions have been, in order: one about Nintendo monetizing his videos; one about Digital Homicide suing him; one about a small-time scummy independent developer; one about how said small-time developer suing him and finally one about his review getting backlash. 4/5 isn't exactly "far apart".

 

[Gravy Boat]

His interest would be to make his patrons happy, not everybody. Why would he care about the people who were not going to give him money either way if he can increase his income from those who may?

That would only work if none of Jims patrons were Nintendo or Zelda fans, which no one has any way of proving one way or the other.

Think about what you're doing. You're arguing that a conspiracy to make more money by opening himself up to DDOS attacks is more likely than someone liking a game less than you. Anyone arguing that is being pathetic and needs to realise that it's just a bloody review score. It doesn't actually mean anything to anyone but the person that wrote the review.

 

[Cyanity]

Let's be honest here: Jim knew EXACTLY the kind of attention he'd get over his original review and planned on making the followup video the entire time. Dude is probably gonna get a bunch of patreon support from all of this drama too.

Still a Jim fan tbh

 

[Gunmonkey36]

This game would probably have 7s and 8s from everyone if the title was just Breath of the Wild and it didn't have link/zelda purely from the framerate/resolution and the controversial weapon durability.

 

[Nick_C]

You just answered the question. It's not like this is the first time people have invoked hate to gain attention on the internet. I 'aint saying it's logical but people often aren't.


That's what spite is, yes.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that Jim spite-scored a 7/10 so people are justified in their utter disdain of him? Like the whole point is for him to alienate a bunch of people?

This is nonsense. More and more these replies sound like a thinly veiled way of discrediting his critique.

 

[SpiceMelange]

This game would probably have 7s and 8s from everyone if the title was just Breath of the Wild and it didn't have link/zelda purely from the framerate/resolution and the controversial weapon durability.

What else do you have in that ass of yours that you can pull

 

[Volphied]

It was Nintendo with Smash Bros, and yes this is quite similar. Neither of those refute my point that the "you hate my opinion because you agree with it" is not a good argument.

Actually, it is a very good argument since so many Zelda fanboys, instead of playing their 10/10 game, are right now wasting their time writing angry comments to Jim or are getting into arguments on the internet with anyone who dares to be critical about their perfect game.

I find the quote pretty spot on.

 

[Hugstable]

Jim, well done. I realy realy loved this video. The fcking hardcore fans are just insane. If you have one bad word about Zelda or Nintendo you are immediatly attacked.

People should realy get a life and remember its just a game.

Love the metacritic quote, who tha fck gives about Metacritic.

LOL coming from someone who was acting nearly the same way when someone had a bad review for Last of Us
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=61489561&postcount=6109

 

[TheMink]

Problem is, what exactly is "late game" in Breath of the Wild? Due to its completely open nature, their really is no such thing. I mean, even Hyrule Castle doesn't really count since you're able to just go in at any time and jus tleave, so it really wouldn't work.

Like, maybe as a reward for beating the game I guess? Or as a sort of New Game+ mode, like what you get access to in NG+ in Xenoblade Chronicles. But otherwise, due to the game being completely open world, I'm not sure how such a system would work since no matter where it would be you could easily make a beeline for it and just rely on it for the entire game.

They locked

Spoiler

the Master Sword

just fine.

50 completed, all shrines completed. Stamina barriers, more health barriers.

I can't not think of ideas.


It's a minor complaint 10/10 game top 5. But still.

 

[Affeinvasion]

All of the people who were mad that BotW even achieved a 98 at all under the belief that reviewers were only doing so because all 50+ people and organizations were biased in such a way that their own subjective and emotional experiences are flawed representations of what the game actually is. I mean, were we also not around to see the user reviews flood in with a bunch of 1's to try and combat the game's critical reception?

It always strikes me as odd that "bias" is implied to only go in one direction, that people can only love Zelda irrationally and not hate it irrationally, that caring about MetaCritic is only a bad thing when fans of a particular title do so, and the praise cannot result in an equivalent backlash if there is a dissonance in feeling left out of something.

I think it's more that, in the end, it doesn't really matter.

 

[MysticLeviathan]

I think Oblivion did gear durability very well. Weapons and armor both lasted a long while, though they obviously decreased in effectiveness as the gear weakened, but they could be easily be repaired to full level by yourself or via a merchant who can repair equipment. And the levels of armorer you could be allowed more effective weapon repairing by eventually allowing you to personally repair magic weapons, repair weapons beyond their 100% level to a potential 125% and by not having your repair hammers break. To me, that made sense. You could keep the weapons you liked the most for the entirety of the game, but you had to keep track of your gear a lot. However, it's not like your gear would go from 100 to 0 in a single fight. I think it worked well, despite its annoyances when you didn't keep track of your gear when it broke. But it made sense and fit the "fantasy life simulator" aspect of TES.


I agree with Jim a lot that gear that can't be fixed kinda sucks and discourages you from using it. It would be one thing if it could be easily repaired, but they can't. Going back to Dark Souls, it kinda reminds me of DS2 and how it discouraged gamers to explore. By lowering your max health each time you die (to a minimum of 50% of your max health), it discouraged you to try and maneuver the environment to try and reach an item you saw. In OG DkS, the only thing you had to lose were your souls and humanity. You could try and infinite number of times to make that one jump, With this, it forces you to either lose your max life total or force you to use an effigy for what might just be a few titanite shards. That kind of discouragement really fucking sucks, and I kinda feel that's how Jim feels with weapons. Why use a weapon if it's just going to irreparably break?

The reaction from hardcore fans was kinda fucking bullshit.

 

[Plum]

Jim doesn't benefit from 'clicks' the way most other youtubers do though. If someone else puts up a 'controversial' review or video, they actively make money from the people going there to hate on them and give them abuse. Jim doesn't, he only gets paid if people willingly give him their own money because they want to. He doesn't lock content behind a paywall or anything, he's basically living on charity. If he put stuff like this out for 'clicks' it's be in his best interest to make everyone happy, not piss off a very vocal group.

Pitting yourself up against a very vocal group is a legitimate tactic. It's exactly what so many right-wing pundits do to make their livings. People will be more willing to give him money if he shares a controversial opinion with them and is seen to "fight" those who disagree with him. There's also the base attention itself; more people watching The Jimquisition means more people clicking the subscriber button which will, potentially, lead to more Patreon revenue. If he really felt it was in his best interest to make everyone happy he wouldn't have posted those tweets or made a scripted video entitled "Weapon Durability, Fanbase Fragility" one day after his review came out. Why would he even draw attention to the controversy if it would negatively affect him?

The difference is that only people that actually like his content give him money.
A million angry Zelda fanatics aren't worth a single cent.

I didn't say the angry Zelda fanatics would give him money.

 

[SpiceMelange]

Actually, it is a very good argument since so many Zelda fanboys, instead of playing their 10/10 game, are right now wasting their time writing angry comments to Jim or are getting into arguments on the internet with anyone who dares to be critical about their perfect game.

I find the quote pretty spot on.

I dont get that argument. It makes zero sense. If a game gets a 10/10 you couldn't possibly NOT play it for a moment to discuss it on the internet? It's literally too good to defend? What kind of logic fallacy is this.

 

[Kthulhu]

So you agree that 1) he monetizes his videos and 2) he makes videos surrounding him and, therefore, does not "hate" the controversy surrounding them?

And of course I can't prove it, but what I do know is that controversy is Marketing 101; from Milo to South Park, from Apple's 1984 Super Bowl Ad to Jim Sterling's provactive tweets about 'Nintendo fanboys', it's a tactic as old as advertising itself. If you look at his most viewed videos you'd see that three out of 5 videos are based on controversy surrounding himself. If you look at his most recent videos you'd see that, recently, they haven't been far apart. His last 5 Jimquistions have been, in order: one about Nintendo monetizing his videos; one about Digital Homicide suing him; one about a small-time scummy independent developer; one about how said small-time developer suing him and finally one about his review getting backlash. 4/5 isn't exactly "far apart".

So, you admit this is all a theory you've concocted out of nothing to justify your anger at a person's opinion? Based solely upon circumstantial evidence I might add.

 

[Nepenthe]

This game would probably have 7s and 8s from everyone if the title was just Breath of the Wild and it didn't have link/zelda purely from the framerate/resolution and the controversial weapon durability.

Or maybe critics would be able to see the game and its systems as still enjoyable without the aesthetic dressings that come with Zelda. You don't know. No one does.

This is little more than a useless hypothetical that also selectively undermines the fact that Zelda is not the only franchise that gets a boost from familiarity of franchise pedigree or even genre (there has to be some reason we keep getting this boring-looking multi-million dollar third-person action-adventure set-piece-driven spectacles with interesting white protagonists who have the perfect statement for everything).

 

[OrbitalBeard]

This game would probably have 7s and 8s from everyone if the title was just Breath of the Wild and it didn't have link/zelda purely from the framerate/resolution and the controversial weapon durability.

If this game were simply called Breath of the Wild and came from another developer, you'd have a very large group of people calling Nintendo out for not evolving the Zelda formula in the way this new Breath of the Wild game managed to do.

 

[NotLiquid]

Then maybe the fanboys ought to stop repeating how full of freedom the game is, when it's obviously "just an illusion". Otherwise it feels like they're being deceitful.

To design games is to design really clever lies.

You don't need people to tell you that "you can't conjure a gigantic cake out of mid-air" or "it doesn't allow you to fly into orbit so it's not 100% freedom". To be any more specific is overthinking into what isn't there. Breath of the Wild is absolutely a game with an unabashed level of massive freedom when reflecting on the context of the game's own existence, it's genre, it's design philosophies and it's series.

To be honest, the fact that criticism like this exists is in and of itself kind of indicative over how much freedom the game actually allows you when it devolves into a semantics discussion.

That's fine. Some people like it. Some don't. But can we at least agree that the people who don't like it have a right to voice their opinion without getting death threats and DDoS attacks? Can we agree that when a reviewer doesn't like a certain game mechanic, it doesn't mean he's a "hater" who needs to be removed from Metacritic?

Can we agree that there's nothing wrong with giving it a 7/10 and saying that it's a good game that one can have a lot of fun with, as long as one tries to deal with the botched implementation of weapon durability?

As long as we can agree that people aren't giving these systems a pass "just because they're Zelda".

 

[LotusHD]

This game would probably have 7s and 8s from everyone if the title was just Breath of the Wild and it didn't have link/zelda purely from the framerate/resolution and the controversial weapon durability.

People always bring up this shitty argument, but ya know what, in a way, the game is better for having that "Zelda skin". The little things like knowing there is a Master Sword out there in this huge world to find adds to the experience imo

 

[Volphied]

What else do you have in that ass of yours that you can pull

But he's right. Hype culture surrounding new Zelda games means that many people are incapable of being critical about any game flaws. They try to find excuses to or even outright ignore anything bad. We'll have to wait until the next Zelda game to be announced for the fanbase to objectively look at BoTW.

It's the Zelda cycle.

 

[aBarreras]

I dont get that argument. It makes zero sense. If a game gets a 10/10 you couldn't possibly NOT play it for a moment to discuss it on the internet? It's literally too good to defend? What kind of logic fallacy is this.

i mean, i took the week off for the game and not a single time i posted about the reviews or bad news about switch and zelda or something.

the only reason im posting on this thread is because im back at work and there are still 4 hours until i can get gome to keep playing!

 

[phoenix296]

There is a reason games don't feature prominent weapon degradation. It is pointless busy work and people probably care about it now in Zelda because it would otherwise be a good game.

Simply give people the option at the start of the game, or at worst give them an option to feed other weapons into good ones. Boom, nobody in their right mind would choose to have their weapons keep breaking and this whole flawed mechanic vanishes again for another 10 years.

And no removing it wouldn't "break the game", just like it has made the souls series better by fading away. Zelda would simply be better too and that should be something the fanbase wants rather than being angry at the suggestion of imperfection.

Explain why weapon degradation is a flawed mechanic in the context of Dead Rising or Breath of the Wild. The games are designed around losing weapons by giving you amply opportunity to acquire new replacements, even more than you can carry most of the time.

You say pointless busy work but it's just a simple act of picking up a new weapon off the ground when one breaks. I would say the Souls stat system is a better definition of pointless busy work. Min/maxing your strength/dexterity to get the best damage output for your weapon while also maintaining a stat line for survivability is just fiddling around with a calculator on your character's stat screen.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Spoiler

fyi you can unequip metalic armor/weapons to avoid thunder

In addition, not only can you avoid Lightning by removing metallic equipment, but also SIDEQUEST REWARD SPOILER

Spoiler

you can get a piece of headgear called the Thunder Helm that makes you completely immune to Lightning by regaining control of Divine Beast Vah Naboris and taking care of some sidequests in Gerudo Town afterward and can easily just switch to that during a thunderstorm if you don't want to take off your metal weapons each time.

 

[Acerac]

That would only work if none of Jims patrons were Nintendo or Zelda fans, which no one has any way of proving one way or the other.

Think about what you're doing. You're arguing that a conspiracy to make more money by opening himself up to DDOS attacks is more likely than someone liking a game less than you. Anyone arguing that is being pathetic and needs to realise that it's just a bloody review score. It doesn't actually mean anything to anyone but the person that wrote the review.

Think about what I'm doing? All I did was correct you when you stated that it was in his best interest to make everyone happy when that clearly isn't the case. You're the one going off on a tangent.

 

[Plum]

So, you admit this is all a theory you've concocted out of nothing to justify your anger at a person's opinion? Based solely upon circumstantial evidence I might add.

If what I posted is "nothing" to you then you clearly don't want to refute my points so I won't bother arguing with you any further. I give examples of other people using the same tactic, evidence to refute your claims and more yet you opt to double down on the "conspiracy theory" narrative. As for me being "angry" about the score; I couldn't care less about the score. This thread is about the video and I'm discussing the video and how this affects my opinion of the man's content.

 

[Hari Seldon]

This game would probably have 7s and 8s from everyone if the title was just Breath of the Wild and it didn't have link/zelda purely from the framerate/resolution and the controversial weapon durability.

Agreed. A 7/8 for this game seems reasonable to me from what I have played of it so far on the WiiU.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Think about what I'm doing? All I did was correct you when you stated that it was in his best interest to make everyone happy when that clearly isn't the case. You're the one going off on a tangent.

Ok maybe it doesn't apply to you but it certainly applies to a lot of people in this thread and else where. It's not a tangent, it's the core discussion of this thread.

 

[SpiceMelange]

But he's right. Hype culture surrounding new Zelda games means that many people are incapable of being critical about any game flaws. They try to find excuses to or even outright ignore anything bad. We'll have to wait until the next Zelda game to be announced for the fanbase to objectively look at BoTW.

It's the Zelda cycle.

Oh he's right? Can you point me to the alternate universe where Breath of Wild exists as non-Zelda title in which it reviewed as a 7-8 on average? That's literally the only way you can prove him right. An ass pull is an ass pull mate.

i mean, i took the week off for the game and not a single time i posted about the reviews or bad news about switch and zelda or something.

the only reason im posting on this thread is because im back at work and there are still 4 hours until i can get gome to keep playing!

That's fine and dandy. There's still zero logic in thinking you couldn't possibly discuss a great game you're playing (because it's too good? lmao). If you can stop playing a 10/10 game momentarily and thus not die from exhaustion, surely by extension you can also find the time to post about it on GAF.

 

[PunjabiPlaya]

Then maybe the fanboys ought to stop repeating how full of freedom the game is, when it's obviously "just an illusion". Otherwise it feels like they're being deceitful.

You realize that for things to work in a game, or in life, there has to be rules to govern "freedom." The word and concept of freedom is just an illusion if you think about it. Where is there ever total freedom in anything? There's no "real freedom" in real life since there's laws to govern how people act and function.

 

[Thebeardofknowledge]

Great video Jim

 

[brad-t]

Crazy how many people don't understand that the open nature of the game's exploration is enabled by transient weapons. None of the suggestions I've seen in this thread at "fixing" or removing this feature take this into account.