Air Zombie Meat
Member
For bare moments.
Its fucking nothing
Yeah I know but technically it's a pause. Everything you're forced to do in the inventory is the real chore, the stuff that can be quick switched really isn't a problem.
For bare moments.
Its fucking nothing
Wow it's almost as if you didn't even watch the video about pirating nintendo games.... I also love how you're trying to throw around the idea that he's a Microsoft or Sony shill. Just shows you really have no clue how to defend whatever viewpoint you have.
To be honest, I didn't like the weapon durability mechanic at first. However, it soon became clear to me the positives. For one, it allows me to play around with different types of weapons. For another, it changes how I approach combat. Instead of just attacking and dodging, I actually use runes, bows, shields, etc. in combat.
As someone who also hates weapon degradation that gameplay has completely turned me off the game, is it common for weapons to break that quick or is it just cleverly edited to look that way? The constant interrupting of the combat is also a huge turn off, that alone would force me to avoid most combat encounters after awhile.
What's the problem with the inventory?Yeah I know but technically it's a pause. Everything you're forced to do in the inventory is the real chore, the stuff that can be quick switched really isn't a problem.
Thank fuck for Jim, at least someone is speaking out about the bad points of Zelda.
I dont understand how nearly everyone can think its a perfect game, with some of its features and what I've seen and heard some criticise about it. Oops sorry, shouldn't have insulted your precious game unless I've played it.
As someone who also hates weapon degradation that gameplay has completely turned me off the game, is it common for weapons to break that quick or is it just cleverly edited to look that way? The constant interrupting of the combat is also a huge turn off, that alone would force me to avoid most combat encounters after awhile.
This was never the question. The question is can you judge on its own merits, can you look behind your own nose. Ebert reviewed all the time movies which were not the kind of he prefers, but he was able to review them fairly and sometimes even gave them high scores.
When you approach something with "I don't like thing. Lets focus on the negative and ignore the good as much as possible", you suck as reviewer.
So yes, reviewing something you normally don't like is fair. But you should be able to take your own bias into account instead of being lead by it.
There was a review thread with more posts than this very thread for that. Don't think any if the reviews said it was perfection though, a couple said it might be the best they've ever played. Something I may end up agreeing with once I can finally stop exploring.
So you think it's more likely that all 60 of those reviewers are biased? You might want to have a good hard look at why you want to believe that, because the evidence just isn't there for you to have come to that conclusion.
Unfortunately, it makes you work harder for it than you should, buried as it is under a pile of small but constant irritations that collaborate to form a thick crust of frustration around a delectable center. Breath of the Wild is a delightful adventure, one that tries its utmost to be as big a pain in the arse as possible."
The trick is to let go and take weapons as they come. I think the core issue is some players (like yourself) like making a connection with their gear and the sentiment/feel they get from that. This is fine in 99% of rpgs/action games, but in Zelda it's not the point.
Embrace that weapons are transient. Once you do this you then literally never have to farm them or get irritated about it. All weapons break, it's a fact of life in Zelda. Now you can improvise though any situation and have a nicer, more chilled time.
First off, reread my initial post. My criticism isn't leveled at the reviewers: it's aimed at the people that are desperately dissecting Jim's review. Those same people didn't bat an eyelid when the 10/10s rolled in. Those are perfect scores. They indicate the game the perfect and has absolutely no flaws. Think about that for a second. Not a great game, not an amazing game, a perfect game. You don't think that warrants a little scrutiny? Folks have the time to call Jim a clickbaiter because he gave the game a decent (not even a terrible) score, but they don't have a second to go "gee, maybe 10/10 is overdoing a bit".
...is this a serious post?
"Thank god someone is finally negative about that game I've never played but I can't believe is good even though lots of people say it is"
What's the problem with the inventory?
damn, where was all this outrage when Jim gave TLG a 6/10?
not that I'm surprised. At least on gaf, I would say Zelda is the one fanbase that trumps the Uncharted fanbase in terms of toxicity, and that's one hell of an accomplishment.
The weapons used in the video seem to be the Traveler weapons, Rusty weapons, and Boko weapons. These are all weapons found in the first maybe 30 minutes of the game. There are mid and late game weapons with considerably higher durability.
First off, reread my initial post. My criticism isn't leveled at the reviewers: it's aimed at the people that are desperately dissecting Jim's review. Those same people didn't bat an eyelid when the 10/10s rolled in. Those are perfect scores. They indicate the game the perfect and has absolutely no flaws. Think about that for a second. Not a great game, not an amazing game, a perfect game. You don't think that warrants a little scrutiny? Folks have the time to call Jim a clickbaiter because he gave the game a decent (not even a terrible) score, but they don't have a second to go "gee, maybe 10/10 is overdoing a bit".
As someone who also hates weapon degradation that gameplay has completely turned me off the game, is it common for weapons to break that quick or is it just cleverly edited to look that way? The constant interrupting of the combat is also a huge turn off, that alone would force me to avoid most combat encounters after awhile.
Nonsense. A 10/10 doesn't indicate that at all. It pretty much says it's the best we have in this genre at this point.
Those same people didn't bat an eyelid when the 10/10s rolled in. Those are perfect scores. They indicate the game the perfect and has absolutely no flaws. Think about that for a second. Not a great game, not an amazing game, a perfect game. You don't think that warrants a little scrutiny? Folks have the time to call Jim a clickbaiter because he gave the game a decent (not even a terrible) score, but they don't have a second to go "gee, maybe 10/10 is overdoing a bit".
You literally cannot change weapons without pausing, what are you talking about? Running away literally changes nothing, and would still interrupt the flow of combat? It's a sting on immersion because the entire game world literally stops while you are forced to pick something new to work with, which breaks the flow of combat and just feels janky and bad - at least, in every single game I've ever played, so maybe Zelda is miraculously somehow different and it feels natural for the enemies to stop moving while you do some quick inventory management, who knows.dont do it then? if you dont want to pause to change weapons, just dont do it
you wanna to run away, and pretend you need to change your weapon realistically, you can do it
also, how can it be a sting on immersion, your fucking weapon just broke, what are you going to do? use a new one, the weapon you are using is not very efective against the enemy you are fighting, what would you do? use a different weapon!
With how the last thread went, I expect this to go great.
Nonsense. A 10/10 doesn't indicate that at all. It pretty much says it's the best we have in this genre at this point. To claim a 10/10 is saying it's utterly perfect is a ludicrous statement.
First off, reread my initial post. My criticism isn't leveled at the reviewers: it's aimed at the people that are desperately dissecting Jim's review. Those same people didn't bat an eyelid when the 10/10s rolled in. Those are perfect scores. They indicate the game the perfect and has absolutely no flaws. Think about that for a second. Not a great game, not an amazing game, a perfect game. You don't think that warrants a little scrutiny? Folks have the time to call Jim a clickbaiter because he gave the game a decent (not even a terrible) score, but they don't have a second to go "gee, maybe 10/10 is overdoing a bit".
I have no attachment to my weapons and that actually discourages me from both combat and exploring. I just avoid combat as much as possible. Most chests offer me weapons or shields that I don't want or need. So all there is left to do is the Shrines and the main story, because the rewards for exploring are rarely worth it.
Then we interpret the scores completely differently.
10 out of 10 has never meant perfect otherwise there's no point in even using a 10 point scale.Then we interpret the scores completely differently.
Can we all agree that the idea that a 10 symbolizes literal perfection is stupid? Like, if you honestly believe that, think about it for like 5 seconds and reevaluate whether you still think that. If the answer is yes, I'd love to you read your thoughts on how that's possible.
It's not like people hate limited bullets in games, right?
Maybe dpad down should have been a quick menu for foods. I found the inventory standard. I liked that I could auto organize outfits.It's a bit of a pain to scroll through to change armour or eat something. Not really any worse than other games but not ideal.
First off, reread my initial post. My criticism isn't leveled at the reviewers: it's aimed at the people that are desperately dissecting Jim's review. Those same people didn't bat an eyelid when the 10/10s rolled in. Those are perfect scores. They indicate the game the perfect and has absolutely no flaws. Think about that for a second. Not a great game, not an amazing game, a perfect game. You don't think that warrants a little scrutiny? Folks have the time to call Jim a clickbaiter because he gave the game a decent (not even a terrible) score, but they don't have a second to go "gee, maybe 10/10 is overdoing a bit".
Ah, okay thank you. Was a little worried it was always like that.
Some would say that's exactly why we use a ten point scale, and that ten not meaning perfect is exactly why the review scale is actually 7 to 10, rather than 1 to 10.10 out of 10 has never meant perfect otherwise there's no point in even using a 10 point scale.
You literally cannot change weapons without pausing, what are you talking about? Running away literally changes nothing, and would still interrupt the flow of combat? It's a sting on immersion because the entire game world literally stops while you are forced to pick something new to work with, which breaks the flow of combat and just feels janky and bad - at least, in every single game I've ever played, so maybe Zelda is miraculously somehow different and it feels natural for the enemies to stop moving while you do some quick inventory management, who knows.
It's something that could be easily fixed by just having the game auto swap you to your next weapon in your inventory if your current one broke, ooooorrrr I dunno, maybe making weapons slightly more durable so that you don't have to worry about them breaking on you while you're in the middle of fighting a bokoblin?
Then we interpret the scores completely differently.
There's also no point in using a 10 point scale if no game can ever possibly get a 10/10.10 out of 10 has never meant perfect otherwise there's no point in even using a 10 point scale.
Considerably higher durability is not saying much when the other weapons are so incredibly quick to break, even the high durability weapons will break faster than a souls weapon.
You literally cannot change weapons without pausing
No they really do break that quickly though you can find new ones very easily. Imagine finding an awesome looking sword only to realize that it breaks in 10-20 hits, I don't know why people defend this system, it's pretty clear to me that the game would be better off without the durability system entirely, or at the very least, with a means of repairing weapons (without permanent breakage).
It's a bit of a pain to scroll through to change armour or eat something. Not really any worse than other games but not ideal.
Considerably higher durability is not saying much when the other weapons are so incredibly quick to break, even the high durability weapons will break faster than a souls weapon.
No they really do break that quickly though you can find new ones very easily. Imagine finding an awesome looking sword only to realize that it breaks in 10-20 hits, I don't know why people defend this system, it's pretty clear to me that the game would be better off without the durability system entirely, or at the very least, with a means of repairing weapons (without permanent breakage).
Depends on the weapon but yeah, it's not uncommon to break a weapon or two per fight with a group of 5+ enemies. Especially at the beginning when you use enemy weapons more frequently.
Considerably higher durability is not saying much when the other weapons are so incredibly quick to break, even the high durability weapons will break faster than a souls weapon.
Plus, most shooters have an unlimited use melee attack that doesn't degrade. So it isn't really an apt comparison.
First off, reread my initial post. My criticism isn't leveled at the reviewers: it's aimed at the people that are desperately dissecting Jim's review. Those same people didn't bat an eyelid when the 10/10s rolled in. Those are perfect scores. They indicate the game the perfect and has absolutely no flaws. Think about that for a second. Not a great game, not an amazing game, a perfect game. You don't think that warrants a little scrutiny? Folks have the time to call Jim a clickbaiter because he gave the game a decent (not even a terrible) score, but they don't have a second to go "gee, maybe 10/10 is overdoing a bit".
A 10 represents the finest of the fine, an exemplar of its genre, and the current game of its type to beat. While nothing in life is perfect, these games come as close to the ideal as one can get. Such a score is not given lightly, and is reserved for true pinnacles of the medium. A pinnacle can be relative another game may eventually come that bests it, but for now, this is the kind of stuff the industry ought to strive for.
That's not the reason why, plenty of movie and music etc critics have no problem using the full scale. The 7-10 is largely a video game reviewer problem and self selecting nature of video game reviewers.Some would say that's exactly why we use a ten point scale, and that ten not meaning perfect is exactly why the review scale is actually 7 to 10, rather than 1 to 10.