Support NeoGAF

[Hero]

Honestly, I think you have to be a bit jaded if you read through this thread and the points that were brought up and your statement is all you got out of it...

These things I brought up are discussions I have on a daily basis with our designers at Moon. We go over every little section of the worlds we build and ask ourselves: "Hey, is this fun enough yet? Do you have any better ideas? Could the player do more interesting things here? Are there enough possibilities to use all the abilities he has? Should this place here maybe have a puzzle in it? What type of enemy would make this particular section more exciting?" and so on and so on. That's literally what I do all day, apart from actually designing levels and making sure all other departments are also on track

And obviously, that clashes with what designers do when they're designing open world games, since due to the size of these worlds, you can't approach them with this mindset. I'm very much a perfectionist and I hate it when I look at a certain section in a game and it doesn't really 'click' yet - But if you design an open world game that is as big as the one in Breath of the Wild, you will absolutely end up with sections that don't click, simply because you can't put enough designers on making everything interesting. Even if you put a ton more people on it, there's still the pressure of time - 9 women can't make a baby in a month and all that

I responded to you last time and you haven't done anything to move the conversation past that. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges here. It is absolutely impossible to design a 3D open world game where you can control the player experience in the way you are describing because there are an insurmountable number of possibilities that the player can take at any given moment. You cannot apply every 2D game design principle to a 3D one. Do you agree with that statement?

 

[thomasmahler]

Yeah but designing a game around strictly not having a need for fast travel is a silly central focus. If you end up with a big world fast travel is an actual designed solution for traversal within that world, it doesnt necessarily mean that that it means traversing the world is unbearable. Its a nice boon. Imagine not having the option to fast travel, it doesnt really matter if the world was half the size and had twice as many fun things to do along the way, it still makes the game easier to play and you dont HAVE to do other things or travel, you can do what you want when you want.

Hey, I don't think Fast Travel is the root of all evil - We actually have fast travel in Ori, which is a much shorter experience

My point was more that most open world games have huge open worlds that are so big that you barely want to traverse them, cause there's rarely something interesting happening. That's definitely the case for games like Skyrim, Oblivion, etc. Nintendo obviously solved a lot of these problems, but not completley - which is why I was saying that it probably would've been better if the world had actually been like 30% smaller with more varied content so you don't have as much repetition going on.

 

[Ansatz]

One thing we did with Ori for example was to look at and dissect the level designs of older Castlevania titles and it was quite interesting to see how many flat levels games like Symphony of the Night actually had. Obviously they then filled up the flat levels with interesting enemies in order for you to not just press the DPAD into one direction, but we knew that the game would be better if we'd improve the movement mechanics beyond what's been done in the past and have the player constantly engage with the world, whether it'd be through jumping, climbing, bashing, solving puzzles, etc. etc., so that it wouldn't just be about one thing that's constantly being repeated.

If Konami would not have added these enemies and you'd have to go through many of these flat levels where your brain isn't engaged at all since all you're doing is moving forward, then there'd still be some people out there defending those designs as 'But it felt atmospheric' -> Even if there's literally no design work done there. This isn't at all about 'but some people have this or that preference', it's about good level design vs. bad level design.

The reason why Igavanias are so addictingly fun really comes down to having great game feel; snappy controls, fluid animation, the satisfying visual feedback and sound effects of hitting a monster, etc. and not brilliant level design or fine-tuned enemy encounters. For the latter you should play Castlevania 1 instead, that game is a masterpiece in terms of creating interesting & varied obstacles and enemies around the game's core mechanics.

 

[toastyToast]

OP, I also disagree with your fun per inch philosophy. However, I do think that BotW is far too big, and it's because the reward for spending 4 minutes climbing a rock is usually something that you've already seen before. A snowy mountain range is going to have the same shrines, Korok seeds, enemy camps, Hinox's, Stone Talus's, stables, and music themes as a river basin.

Ultimately the game runs out of things for you to discover. More often than not, scaling an impossibly high mountain rewards you with a rock you can lift to find a Korok underneath.

The seams start showing a lot sooner than people let on

 

[thomasmahler]

The reason why Igavanias are so addictingly fun really comes down to having great game feel; snappy controls, fluid animation, the satisfying visual feedback and sound effects of hitting a monster, etc. and not brilliant level design or fine-tuned enemy encounters. For the latter you should play Castlevania 1 instead, that game is a masterpiece in terms of creating interesting & varied obstacles and enemies around the game's core mechanics.

I know. And I goddamn love Igavanias. But they'd still be better if the level design would be more varied and less 'walk along this straight path and fight these enemies' over and over again. Those sections are fine, but if you'd actually have better, more fluid platforming controls and level designs that'd make use of those controls, the experience would be more varied and you could then combine the enemies with those platforming sections and so on.

To break it down: You're saying the games are fun despite the sometimes boring level design and I'm saying the games would be even more fun if the level design would be better on top of what they're already doing

 

[Ansatz]

Ultimately the game runs out of things for you to discover. More often than not, scaling an impossibly high mountain rewards you with a rock you can lift to find a Korok underneath.

The seams start showing a lot sooner than people let on

The top of high mountain is your viewpoint that leads to new points of interest, while the Korok hiding in a stone is the developer's way of saying 'well done' in the same way they reward you with 1ups in Mario platformers if you did something that was seemingly unintended by the developers.

 

[Owensboro]

Ultimately the game runs out of things for you to discover. More often than not, scaling an impossibly high mountain rewards you with a rock you can lift to find a Korok underneath.

The seams start showing a lot sooner than people let on

Except that "seam" is entirely subjective. Korok seeds directly make the player more powerful through increasing inventory space. Some people only want a few more slots and burn out in seeds early, others want full pages of weapons and can't wait to find the next Korok puzzle. The second bonus is that you now have a high vantage point that allows you to see new things to explore to make you even more powerful. It entirely depends on the player to decide when they feel powerful enough to stop.

 

[thomasmahler]

The top of high mountain is your viewpoint that leads to new points of interest, while the Korok hiding in a stone is the developer's way of saying 'well done' in the same way they reward you with 1ups in Mario platformers if you did something that was seemingly unintended by the developers.

The problem is that if you have 30 mountains next to one another that all have the same 1Up, you stop caring about 1Ups There are 900 (!) of these Korok seeds scattered throughout the world and there are only like 6 or 7 or so different things you do to get them. Obviously you don't need to get all of them, but you can't deny that there's a huge amount of repetition there.

In a 3d Mario, the levels are carefully designed and you're constantly being bombarded with genius design in order to scale one of these mountains. In Breath of the Wild, the mountains have been sculpted into a terrain and they're all being traversed in basically the same exact way...

 

[Malus]

Ultimately the game runs out of things for you to discover. More often than not, scaling an impossibly high mountain rewards you with a rock you can lift to find a Korok underneath.

The seams start showing a lot sooner than people let on

The seams started showing for me as soon as I got to the 2nd combat trial in a shrine. Still, I'm more than a hundred hours in and still discovering things. Hell there are even some large areas I didn't realize I forgot to explore because of the game's sheer scale and I find a lot of satisfaction in those discoveries.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

I said a few times that I don't mind fast travel. I said it'd be great if games were designed so you don't have to fast travel all over the place, and that walking to and from places was more rewarding and fun. If you take my posts to mean that I think the addition of fast travel is a problem, even in the post you quoted, then I don't know what to say.

They are already designed in a way that you don't have to fast travel everywhere though. You don't have to fast travel in BotW, and going from place to place is rewarding and fun. There are plenty of other examples too, like Gravity Rush 1&2, the inFamous games, Xenoblade Chronicles X....all of those games make traversal fun and rewarding, while also having fast travel. This is a problem that has already been solved, fast travel isn't a necessity it's a convenience feature.

 

[Ansatz]

I know. And I goddamn love Igavanias. But they'd still be better if the level design would be more varied and less 'walk along this straight path and fight these enemies' over and over again. Those sections are fine, but if you'd actually have better, more fluid platforming controls and level designs that'd make use of those controls, the experience would be more varied and you could then combine the enemies with those platforming sections and so on.

To break it down: You're saying the games are fun despite the sometimes boring level design and I'm saying the games would be even more fun if the level design would be better on top of what they're already doing

The level design in Igavanias is generic and bland for sure, but it's the metroidvania aspect that keeps it all together. The macroscopic element of thinking about the entire map layout as a whole instead of the individual rooms, which areas you've been to and how this new ability affects the way you can traverse previously accessed rooms, etc. Without this dimension there's nothing really there other than amazing game feel.

Like, even if you fill this demo area in Bloodstained with enemies, that doesn't make it good. They need to show us real metroidvania elements and new unique abilities that affect traversal in a meaningful way (think Between Worlds Wall Link) for me to say "now we're talking". I know they won't do this, especially given how linear and divided Ecclesia's map was, but I will buy it regardless because the act of controlling the character, hitting enemies and taking in the audiovisuals is so good even if the gameplay is repetitive.

 

[The Dude]

I know. And I goddamn love Igavanias. But they'd still be better if the level design would be more varied and less 'walk along this straight path and fight these enemies' over and over again. Those sections are fine, but if you'd actually have better, more fluid platforming controls and level designs that'd make use of those controls, the experience would be more varied and you could then combine the enemies with those platforming sections and so on.

To break it down: You're saying the games are fun despite the sometimes boring level design and I'm saying the games would be even more fun if the level design would be better on top of what they're already doing

But I think that could be said for so many games. I play a ton of games and I could take even the best and break down what I feel would make it better, it's sort of an endless circle that could go on for every game.

I get what you're saying but I still also believe it's personal choice, I don't find a lot of the stuff you mentioned as a problem, I find myself pretty occupied in zelda with the many things they have to do even if some stuff is more simplistic, the scope of this game and world is just top notch.

But here's the kicker, the main reason I don't really like to dissect negatives that much is because I can't change anything, so I'd rather enjoy what I enjoy. But you on the other hand you have a hand in this stuff, so my thing is hopefully you'll be in position to make a game and show those ideas and make it happen, know what I mean?

I guess as I said for me I can sit and break down even the best games. Like horizon, amazing game... Massive beautiful world but the incentive to explore is even less than zelda, yet the game is still incredible... And that's just one example.

Every game has areas that one could break down and say needs to be better.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Would you mind pointing me in the direction of a thread that has some arguments that aren't just personal taste

The poster said: "There are zero arguments in the whole thread that amount to anything more than personal taste."

I'm asking for a thread that has some sweet arguments that are objective fact.

There's plenty to criticise (and indeed, has been criticised at length in several threads) even in BotW from an objective point of view: framerate dips, resolution and lack of antialiasing, lack of enemy variety, dungeon scarcity and length, etc. But by all means don't let me stop you from constructing the argument that they're also subjective because surely some people prefer sub-20 framerates and not having to deal with half of the staple Zelda enemy types.

 

[thomasmahler]

The level design in Igavanias is generic and bland for sure, but it's the metroidvania aspect that keeps it all together. The macroscopic element of thinking about the entire map layout as a whole instead of the individual rooms, which areas you've been to and how this new ability affects the way you can traverse previously accessed rooms, etc. Without this dimension there's nothing really there other than amazing game feel.

Like, even if you fill this demo area in Bloodstained with enemies, that doesn't make it good. They need to show us real metroidvania elements and new unique abilities that affect traversal in a meaningful way (think Between Worlds Wall Link) for me to say "now we're talking". I know they won't do this, especially given how linear and divided Ecclesia's map was, but I will buy it regardless because the act of controlling the character, hitting enemies and taking in the audiovisuals is so good even if the gameplay is repetitive.

Have you played Ori? I'd love to know what you thought of it compared to Iga's games. I'm a huge, huge fan of Iga (And I'm also a huge fan of Nintendo and their designers, even though this thread maybe makes me seem like a bit of a hater because I am an outspoken designer and a perfectionist) and his Metroidvanias, but we definitely approached making a Metroidvania in a different way than he did by putting a bigger focus on the actual platforming and trying to make the traversal of the areas more fun. Try it if you get a chance, would be interesting to see you compare them

 

[thomasmahler]

But I think that could be said for so many games. I play a ton of games and I could take even the best and break down what I feel would make it better, it's sort of an endless circle that could go on for every game.

I get what you're saying but I still also believe it's personal choice, I don't find a lot of the stuff you mentioned as a problem, I find myself pretty occupied in zelda with the many things they have to do even if some stuff is more simplistic, the scope of this game and world is just top notch.

But here's the kicker, the main reason I don't really like to dissect negatives that much is because I can't change anything, so I'd rather enjoy what I enjoy. But you on the other hand you have a hand in this stuff, so my thing is hopefully you'll be in position to make a game and show those ideas and make it happen, know what I mean?

And you should enjoy it, dude, that's what games are all about! I'm definitely trying my best to give people experiences that are hard to break down and criticize (Simliar to how ALTTP is still hard for me to break down and criticize even 20 years later)... I'm somewhat OCDing on our own projects, trying to squeeze as much fun into them as possible, trying to get to 'perfection' until I'll drop dead at some point. And having arguments like in this thread helps me to understand what people are looking for, it helps me understand what people like and dislike and whether or not I'm on point with my ideas about how to make 'perfect' games. I sometimes hate Nintendo for being so goddamn genius in their design work, but I also want them to keep doing that stuff, just cause I can learn from that and hopefully deliver something even better than what I did before

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Yeah I really wanted to love the over world. There's this big complicated map with a bunch of cool names and labels. Sometimes I would see a really cool feature or lake on the map, and at first I was like "I wanna check that out", and then after a few seconds I'm like "Why?" Unless there's a shrine there's not a lot of reason to explore. A lot of the side quests weren't that interesting. Definitely would've liked more variety. But I still like the game.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Hey, I don't think Fast Travel is the root of all evil - We actually have fast travel in Ori, which is a much shorter experience

My point was more that most open world games have huge open worlds that are so big that you barely want to traverse them, cause there's rarely something interesting happening. That's definitely the case for games like Skyrim, Oblivion, etc.

I thought Skyrim and Oblivion had WAY more interesting things per inch than BOTW. There was always a cave or something to explore, and you usually cared about exploring it, because the juice was usually worth the squeeze. I have zero interest in fighting camps at this point, I'm wasting weapon dexterity for literally nothing.

 

[Peléo]

The problem is that if you have 30 mountains next to one another that all have the same 1Up, you stop caring about 1Ups There are 900 (!) of these Korok seeds scattered throughout the world and there are only like 6 or 7 or so different things you do to get them. Obviously you don't need to get all of them, but you can't deny that there's a huge amount of repetition there.

I think there is actually a decent amount of different ways you can get Korok Seeds:

-Lifting stones
-Exploding rocks
-Shooting baloons
-Solving Ball & Chain puzzles
-Solving squares puzzles
-Jumping on the water
-Rearranging rocks
-Catching white dust
-Following Yellow Flower
-Putting Apples on Statues
-Walking through yellow arcs
-Playing basketball with rock


I found around 100 so far so there are probably more ways to get them as well. I think a comparison with the Kong letters is applicable: they are small puzzles that reward the player for mastering game mechanics with a minor and optional prize.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I know. And I goddamn love Igavanias. But they'd still be better if the level design would be more varied and less 'walk along this straight path and fight these enemies' over and over again. Those sections are fine, but if you'd actually have better, more fluid platforming controls and level designs that'd make use of those controls, the experience would be more varied and you could then combine the enemies with those platforming sections and so on.

To break it down: You're saying the games are fun despite the sometimes boring level design and I'm saying the games would be even more fun if the level design would be better on top of what they're already doing

I feel like the majority of replies are saying that the level design isn't boring and is part of why it's fun, and you're just asserting that it's objectively bad and we're not noticing it or overlooking that.

 

[KahooTs]

The problem is that if you have 30 mountains next to one another that all have the same 1Up, you stop caring about 1Ups There are 900 (!) of these Korok seeds scattered throughout the world and there are only like 6 or 7 or so different things you do to get them. Obviously you don't need to get all of them, but you can't deny that there's a huge amount of repetition there.

In a 3d Mario, the levels are carefully designed and you're constantly being bombarded with genius design in order to scale one of these mountains. In Breath of the Wild, the mountains have been sculpted into a terrain and they're all being traversed in basically the same exact way...

The problem with wha you wrote is that there's not 30 mountains next to each other, or are any of the mountains the same, and there are only like 6 or 7 or so categories of different ways to get them, and within almost all those categories are unique puzzles.

 

[Owensboro]

I thought Skyrim and Oblivion had WAY more interesting things per inch than BOTW. There was always a cave or something to explore, and you usually cared about exploring it, because the juice was usually worth the squeeze. I have zero interest in fighting camps at this point, I'm wasting weapon dexterity for literally nothing.

Man, I completely disagree. After the 8th cave that was exactly the same, I had no reason to ever want to randomly go in a cave again. If the cave was special, there was most likely going to be a quest that pointed to it. In BotW, there is always something to find. In addition to Korok Seeds and Shrines there are also plants, bugs, hidden chests, minigames, weapons, new areas (stables, un-mapped locations like fairy fountains or hot springs) etc. that always rewarded me for exploring.

 

[The Dude]

And you should enjoy it, dude, that's what games are all about! I'm definitely trying my best to give people experiences that are hard to break down and criticize (Simliar to how ALTTP is still hard for me to break down and criticize even 20 years later)... I'm somewhat OCDing on our own projects, trying to squeeze as much fun into them as possible, trying to get to 'perfection' until I'll drop dead at some point. And having arguments like in this thread helps me to understand what people are looking for, it helps me understand what people like and dislike and whether or not I'm on point with my ideas about how to make 'perfect' games. I sometimes hate Nintendo for being so goddamn genius in their design work, but I also want them to keep doing that stuff, just cause I can learn from that and hopefully deliver something even better than what I did before

Yea, honestly I think fun is the key... And if you nail fun you'll always make a good game. Nintendo games are always just pure fun, like I was telling my wife the other day how zelda is not per say something I've never played before but the execution of what is there is fun. Nintendo just is a different kind of gaming genius , I'd imagine it'd be hard as a dev to try and match that type of magic.

I think in the case of zelda what makes up for a little lack of certain things is that world is very exciting to explore. I don't know what it is, but it feels like every inches is just something I want to see, it feels like it was designed piece by piece with detail in mind. And since the story is that everything had been destroyed by calamity Ganon it fits being a little baron at times.

My biggest critique for zelda is no recipe book tho, that is the one thing I find inexcusable. But yea zelda just captivates me, those huge structures are also just amazing.. But I agree that hopefully the next zelda adds a little extra while keeping this formula. As is tho, it's addicting as hell.

As for Ori, yea great stuff there... One of the better recent metroidvania games. It had me hooked from the start and loved the art direction.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

I disagree about the open world size tbh, I really don't mind big empty spaces. Real life is like that, if stuff is too dense it doesn't feel plausible.

 

[KahooTs]

Skyrim feels like it was created by random generation in comparison to BOTW.

 

[The Dude]

Skyrim feels like it was created by random generation in comparison to BOTW.

Yea, i was going to touch on that also. I love skyrim but the world doesn't feel handcrafted with tlc, it's a fun game but it has a feel of a randomly generated world that they maybe tweaked a bit. It's beautiful at times tho, but it doesn't hook me like BoTW world has.

 

[kaizoku]

I appreciate these opinions, obviously well studied, experienced and so on. But it's these types of educations that can often lead to shallow, soul-less games being made that have you do "fun" things.

I had the opposite opinion of Zelda's open world. It's beautiful, and it's not just full of "things to do" - it's full of things to find and discover.

And that is what's amazing about Zelda since day one, when miyamoto looked into a sewer and thought "what's in there?"

The world is a hand crafted marvel and everywhere I go there is discovery and that is the very essence of adventure. I literally find something I want to explore constantly and when I go there I always find something. That's amazing game design.

When I climb a mountain I find a bunch more places I want to go.

I don't want it to end. I don't need it to be full of enemies or whatever in some rhythmic pattern.

 

[The Dude]

Yea the issue with having to many "hooks" let's say, starts to make it feel more like going from game to game in a carnival. That would cheapen it a bit imho..

Calamity Ganon destroyed it all, so for what's left it has enough sense of discovery and flow, while a good bit to do as is I feel.

 

[pringles]

The problem is that if you have 30 mountains next to one another that all have the same 1Up, you stop caring about 1Ups There are 900 (!) of these Korok seeds scattered throughout the world and there are only like 6 or 7 or so different things you do to get them. Obviously you don't need to get all of them, but you can't deny that there's a huge amount of repetition there.

I can think of like 15+ different things you do to get them just off the top of my head.. there are likely more that I haven't encountered too. I don't see it as repetition at all, rather cute little puzzles that reward those who explore and pay attention to the world.

I thought Skyrim and Oblivion had WAY more interesting things per inch than BOTW. There was always a cave or something to explore, and you usually cared about exploring it, because the juice was usually worth the squeeze. I have zero interest in fighting camps at this point, I'm wasting weapon dexterity for literally nothing.

I feel so differently I don't even know where to start. But I'm 80 hours into BotW and I'm just constantly stumbling upon unique and surprising things. Cool, different quests, fun NPCs, new minigames.. and just reaching new destinations is a joy because it's all so handcrafted. The map is huge but I pretty much know it by heart because every location is memorable. Entering a new shrine means you get a unique challenge 90% of the time, unlike Skyrim where like 5-6 variations on caves are stretched into the hundreds with almost no unique markers.

 

[Guess Who]

Sometimes an open world game needs a big, open, grassy field. That's part of what creates a believable world. Not every single aspect of a game world has to be about "fun per inch."

Without playing the game, I already knew that it would be empty, boring and repetitive just like MGSV but how's the story, characters, music, sound and voice acting?

BotW's world is so much more full of life than MGSV's that it's not even remotely fucking comparable.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

snip

Without playing the game, I already knew that it would be empty, boring and repetitive just like MGSV but how's the story, characters, music, sound and voice acting?

 

[Hero]

Without playing the game, I already knew that it would be empty, boring and repetitive just like MGSV but how's the story, characters, music, sound and voice acting?

You really wanted the worst post in this thread, huh?

 

[LotusHD]

Without playing the game, I already knew that it would be empty, boring and repetitive just like MGSV but how's the story, characters, music, sound and voice acting?

 

[OrbitalBeard]

This thread has made me very happy to see that most seem to be over the idea that an open world game needs to be incredibly dense, with something unique going on every five steps, in order to be fun. BotW's vast world is one of its best assets. I genuinely believe the game wouldn't be as good as it is if the world were smaller.

 

[Dangansona]

I disagree about the open world size tbh, I really don't mind big empty spaces. Real life is like that, if stuff is too dense it doesn't feel plausible.

And in games like BotW, SotC, and Nier it can really evoke a melancholic atmosphere.

This thread has made me very happy to see that most seem to be over the idea that an open world game needs to be incredibly dense, with something unique going on every five steps, in order to be fun. BotW's vast world is one of its best assets. I genuinely believe the game wouldn't be as good as it is if the world were smaller.

A lot of us are just done with the checklists.

 

[Vanadium]

I agree with about everything here. Same problems I had with the newer GTA games in the map size. I prefer density of things to interact with not just walking or driving for 10 minutes.

Combat is clunky AF. I never did get the parry down like I can in Soulsborne. Great game and there's a good future on this design for Zelda but it's got plenty of room to improve.

 

[The Main Event]

I disagree about the open world size tbh, I really don't mind big empty spaces. Real life is like that, if stuff is too dense it doesn't feel plausible.

There's this part where I was wandering with nothing really much going on, then out of the blue I discover this tiny waterfall, all there by itself. And I'm like holy crap, that's such a cool waterfall. Let me go take a look and catch some fish.

So I agree, with a world too dense, that tiny waterfall would've probably gone totally unnoticed. That's what makes the exploration so fulfilling, banal landmarks actually become meaningful.

 

[En-ou]

The problem is that if you have 30 mountains next to one another that all have the same 1Up, you stop caring about 1Ups There are 900 (!) of these Korok seeds scattered throughout the world and there are only like 6 or 7 or so different things you do to get them. Obviously you don't need to get all of them, but you can't deny that there's a huge amount of repetition there.

In a 3d Mario, the levels are carefully designed and you're constantly being bombarded with genius design in order to scale one of these mountains. In Breath of the Wild, the mountains have been sculpted into a terrain and they're all being traversed in basically the same exact way...

For someone who is a designer I'm finding it hard to understand that you do not grasp the difference between repetition and the korok puzzles. By your train of thought we can surmise that all FPS games are boring and repetitive as shit because we shoot an enemy with a handful of weapons, 6 or 7. Think about that for a few mins.

There's this part where I was wandering with nothing really much going on, then out of the blue I discover this tiny waterfall, all there by itself. And I go like holy crap, that's such a cool waterfall. Let me go take a look and catch some fish.

So I agree, with a world too dense, that tiny waterfall would've probably gone totally unnoticed. That's what makes the exploration so fulfilling, banal landmarks actually become meaningful.

Exactly. The law of diminishing returns. Nintendo Zelda devs are geniuses in that they deftly utilize the less is more concept.

 

[BackwardCap]

Do you think the upcoming DLC will aleviate any of these issues?

 

[Lork]

The problem is that if you have 30 mountains next to one another that all have the same 1Up, you stop caring about 1Ups There are 900 (!) of these Korok seeds scattered throughout the world and there are only like 6 or 7 or so different things you do to get them. Obviously you don't need to get all of them, but you can't deny that there's a huge amount of repetition there.

No, I stop caring about 1Ups because after a certain point their benefit becomes meaningless. Korok seeds always offer a tangible benefit, even if the value of a single one becomes depreciated over a playthrough. Also, if you actually think there are only 7 different things to do for them, it's likely that you've been passing over several different types that you haven't been recognizing as puzzles in your travels. Figuring out that these things have been under your nose all along is part of the fun, and it's something that would be virtually impossible to do if Nintendo didn't give us multiple chances instead of just one for each type, even if the world were 30% smaller. Recognizing a puzzle type that you've already solved also serves as a nice, gratifying reward for having solved the puzzle and obtained the "secret knowledge" behind it (and that's when they don't introduce additional complications to make things even more interesting, which happens at a decent frequency).

 

[Zero²]

And in games like BotW, SotC, and Nier it can really evoke a melancholic atmosphere.

I agree completely, specially when you listen to a soundtrack like this, it made me feel so... hopeful? Like everything is run down, but nature still remains.
And then I found a Hinox right ahead of me on the suspension bridge, and my mood completely changed haha

 

[Basileus777]

The problem is that if you have 30 mountains next to one another that all have the same 1Up, you stop caring about 1Ups There are 900 (!) of these Korok seeds scattered throughout the world and there are only like 6 or 7 or so different things you do to get them. Obviously you don't need to get all of them, but you can't deny that there's a huge amount of repetition there.

Korok seeds aren't something that are meant to be obsessively collected, but rather things you encounter naturally when exploring. They aren't even much of a carrot as more slots aren't especially useful once you've unlocked a few of them. There's very little reason to ever need more than like 40 seeds.

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

I feel like the majority of replies are saying that the level design isn't boring and is part of why it's fun, and you're just asserting that it's objectively bad and we're not noticing it or overlooking that.

Guess we just need to be perfectionists to get it

Seriously OP we don't need to be reminded of that every page, gets a little groan-worthy after awhile and doesn't add to an argument.

I do agree with the idea that hand-crafted encounters can at times be more exciting than the emergent fare that's the bulk of the overworld gameplay, I'm not typically the kind of gamer that wants to experiment with a physics engine's possibilities ad nauseum to maybe ellicit a cool kill or solution to clearing an enemy camp. I feel the novelty of that system dried up once you started to get geared up once off the plateau, the only other area that really gave me that dynamic feel of discovering solutions to systems based on little resources (ie weapons) was Eventide Island. Would have much preferred a harsher system of survival w/o the glut of loot everywhere.

Perhaps the solution to this would be less weapon drops but ofc that would remove a lot of the agency of the player and also futz with the logic of all items being physics objects. Then again, plenty of rpgs don't give you what the enemy you just took down was wielding so I'd much prefer it if they could have adopted that for the sake of more experimentation with the initial tools. Yes, I could force myself to toss every weapon I have aside but many of the enemy camps I came across didn't seem to have enough larger objects to use as an alternate form of weaponry. Magnesis seemed seriously underutilized for objects to manipulate in many of the camps, which bummed me due to it being prominent as an option on the plateau and Eventide.

My issue is I don't feel like they catered the different areas to providing enough dynamic possibilities for approach, unless you're some hardcore gamer type that typically tries to manipulate and cheese the fuck out of every system at your disposal (hint: I'm not one of em). So maybe the issue is I'm not creative enough, but it did feel like outside of dropping bombs from my glider for the umpteenth time the base abilities seemed very underutilized for at least the combat encounters.

All that said I still found the open world captivating as hell and the white spaces appropriately spaced between landmarks and new things to discover. Then again, I adore walking sims and getting lost in a sprawling world, and abhor collectathon Ubi-style open world grind fests. Nintendo did a fantastic job with the layout and packing it appropriately without it feeling like some theme park. I don't need that in this sort of game, I want to feel lost in the world and my own agency to go where I want when I want and not suddenly be dragged into some overwrought scripted sequence just to hold my supposedly shallow attention span. World building is a delicate balance with open world titles and I think Nintendo struck the perfect balance. Just gimme more physics interactions and possibilities per encounter maybe.

 

[watershed]

Not entirely related to the OP but related to some criticism of BOTW and hyperbole and fanboyism, on one of the latest Waypoint podcasts they read a troll email from a listener and then read through some of the back and forth messages they had with the troll. The person who wrote the initial troll email actually backs off quite a bit and acknowledges their trolling as trolling. But they also couch their trolling in the context of not liking Zelda and not liking that other people like Zelda and how angry that makes them. This person declared Horizon ZD as the far better game than BOTW before ever playing either and goes on to defend that statement along with several other troll comments.

This is something toxic about the gaming community. The guy fully admits that it makes him ANGRY to read/hear other people praising Zelda because he does not feel the same way to the point that he trolls (insults, etc) people over their enjoyment of the game. I will never understand this kind of gross desire on the part of some gamers. Its such a destructive, immature way of interacting with one's peers.

 

[Lork]

I know. And I goddamn love Igavanias. But they'd still be better if the level design would be more varied and less 'walk along this straight path and fight these enemies' over and over again. Those sections are fine, but if you'd actually have better, more fluid platforming controls and level designs that'd make use of those controls, the experience would be more varied and you could then combine the enemies with those platforming sections and so on.

To break it down: You're saying the games are fun despite the sometimes boring level design and I'm saying the games would be even more fun if the level design would be better on top of what they're already doing

Warren Spector caught a lot of shit from his game designer friends over the hacking system in his game, Deus Ex.

In the game, there were computers that could be used to gather intel, lock or unlock doors, or control security systems like cameras or automated turrets. In order to access these computers you either needed to learn the password, or invest your exp into a "hacking" skill, which would allow you to press a button to spend a little time to bypass the authentication process and use a limited subset of what the computer can do (depending on how much you've invested). People loved it. The fantasy of being an elite hacker who uses his skills to lay waste to his enemies without having to lay a finger on them is a potent one, and the gameplay possibilities afforded by being able to turn the enemy's own defenses against them were substantial.

But there was a problem: "All you have to do is click a button and wait? How boring!" Unbeknownst to me when I was playing the game, every time I would click the "hack" button, I was being assaulted by wasted opportunities to provide more gameplay. The gameplay implications of having to get past the enemy's defenses to find the computer or to stay hidden while completing the hack aren't enough, nor is the investment into the hacking skill in lieu of other things, clearly.

Perhaps because of this criticism, Eidos Montreal implemented a pretty substantial hacking minigame in their modern reboot of Deus Ex. Now, before you can use a computer you need to play a quasi RTS game to make it yours. No longer can you say that you didn't have to do anything to hack that computer... It has risks and rewards, it tests your dexterity a bit, it even gives you extra bonuses for doing especially well! Definitely a game design win. High fives all around!

Except I can't stand playing it. It's not so bad at first, when it's just the occasional terminal with an easy variation of the minigame, but as the game goes on and not only does each instance of the minigame become harder (and longer), but the computers themselves become more and more common, even if you liked it at first, the prospect of having to play the minigame for every. fucking. computer. becomes more and more arduous. It gets to the point where I'm sitting in front of a cubicle farm, and even though I actually want the rewards, the thought of having to play that game 15 times in a row becomes so exhausting that I just give up on the whole thing.

But hey, at least they filled the empty space!

By the same token, I don't need to climb a goddamn jungle gym during every single fight to have fun in Castlevania. Like anything else there can be a place for it, but there's also literally nothing wrong with having the level take a backseat and let an enemy be the star of the show for a little while. Really, it's fine. You can quibble over the relative amounts of each if you want, but this idea that every single uncovered crevice needs to be crammed full of gameplay lest an opportunity be wasted is absolutely poisonous.

 

[The Dude]

Not entirely related to the OP but related to some criticism of BOTW and hyperbole and fanboyism, on one of the latest Waypoint podcasts they read a troll email from a listener and then read through some of the back and forth messages they had with the troll. The person who wrote the initial troll email actually backs off quite a bit and acknowledges their trolling as trolling. But they also couch their trolling in the context of not liking Zelda and not liking that other people like Zelda and how angry that makes them. This person declared Horizon ZD as the far better game than BOTW before ever playing either and goes on to defend that statement along with several other troll comments.

This is something toxic about the gaming community. The guy fully admits that it makes him ANGRY to read/hear other people praising Zelda because he does not feel the same way to the point that he trolls (insults, etc) people over their enjoyment of the game. I will never understand this kind of gross desire on the part of some gamers. Its such a destructive, immature way of interacting with one's peers.

I agree, I'll never get it either. I view it as sort of an instability in their minds because it's not normal behavior. There's something wrong with a person like that.

 

[DeanBDean]

Warren Spector caught a lot of shit from his game designer friends over the hacking system in his game, Deus Ex.

In the game, there were computers that could be used to gather intel, lock or unlock doors, or control security systems like cameras or automated turrets. In order to access these computers you either needed to learn the password, or invest your exp into a "hacking" skill, which would allow you to press a button to spend a little time to bypass the authentication process and use a limited subset of what the computer can do (depending on how much you've invested). People loved it. The fantasy of being an elite hacker who uses his skills to lay waste to his enemies without having to lay a finger on them is a potent one, and the gameplay possibilities afforded by being able to turn the enemy's own defenses against them were substantial.

But there was a problem: "All you have to do is click a button and wait? How boring!" Unbeknownst to me when I was playing the game, every time I would click the "hack" button, I was being assaulted by wasted opportunities to provide more gameplay. The gameplay implications of having to get past the enemy's defenses to find the computer or to stay hidden while completing the hack aren't enough, nor is the investment into the hacking skill in lieu of other things, clearly.

Perhaps because of this criticism, Eidos Montreal implemented a pretty substantial hacking minigame in their modern reboot of Deus Ex. Now, before you can use a computer you need to play a quasi RTS game to make it yours. No longer can you say that you didn't have to do anything to hack that computer... It has risks and rewards, it tests your dexterity a bit, it even gives you extra bonuses for doing especially well! Definitely a game design win. High fives all around!

Except I can't stand playing it. It's not so bad at first, when it's just the occasional terminal with an easy variation of the minigame, but as the game goes on and not only does each instance of the minigame become harder (and longer), but the computers themselves become more and more common, even if you liked it at first, the prospect of having to play the minigame for every. fucking. computer. becomes more and more arduous. It gets to the point where I'm sitting in front of a cubicle farm, and even though I actually want the rewards, the thought of having to play that game 15 times in a row becomes so exhausting that I just give up on the whole thing.

But hey, at least they filled the empty space!

By the same token, I don't need to climb a goddamn jungle gym during every single fight to have fun in Castlevania. Like anything else there can be a place for it, but there's also literally nothing wrong with having the level take a backseat and let an enemy be the star of the show for a little while. Really, it's fine. You can quibble over the relative amounts of each if you want, but this idea that every single uncovered crevice needs to be crammed full of gameplay lest an opportunity be wasted is absolutely poisonous.

Awesome post. I totally agree about not having a problem with Deus Ex hacking. Like Ocarina's Water Temple, I didn't know it was a problem until the Internet told me years later.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

You really wanted the worst post in this thread, huh?

Had the same feeling about MGSV, was easily right in my opinion of it before I played it and while I put 68 hours into the game, if anything, I put too much time into that game and it simply wasn't worth that much of an investment for so many reasons, most of which just get a shrug and a free pass despite being bashed in so many other open world games.

Watching videos of Zelda and reading about it, the game just seems to be the same damn thing. Huge open world with several different things to do ala MGSV ala every open world game but with there being dozens of those same different things. Reading the OP, every one of my concerns without playing the game seem to be on point so if they're true without playing the game, how would I get any other conclusion when I do play the game? Especially when others who have completed the game are saying what I already know despite not playing the game yet?

Whether it's here or other sites, I have realized that some games and/or publishers no matter what get a free pass while others no matter what don't despite those that do get the free pass are doing the same exact thing that those who don't get the free pass are doing.

No bait. And the story, characters, music, sound and voice acting is a legitimate question. In all the topics and posts that I have read, I barely see anyone talking about these things unless I want to be spoiled which I don't. I just want to know if the story and characters is worth caring about like a Witcher III, like an Horizon or is it like MGSV where not so much?

 

[Hero]

Had the same feeling about MGSV, was easily right in my opinion of it before I played it and while I put 68 hours into the game, if anything, I put too much time into that game and it simply wasn't worth that much of an investment for so many reasons, most of which just get a shrug and a free pass despite being bashed in so many other open world games.

Watching videos of Zelda and reading about it, the game just seems to be the same damn thing. Huge open world with several different things to do ala MGSV ala every open world game but with there being dozens of those same different things. Reading the OP, every one of my concerns without playing the game seem to be on point so if they're true without playing the game, how would I get any other conclusion when I do play the game? Especially when others who have completed the game are saying what I already know despite not playing the game yet?

Whether it's here or other sites, I have realized that some games and/or publishers no matter what get a free pass while others no matter what don't despite those that do get the free pass are doing the same exact thing that those who don't get the free pass are doing.



No bait. And the story, characters, music, sound and voice acting is a legitimate question. In all the topics and posts that I have read, I barely see anyone talking about these things unless I want to be spoiled which I don't. I just want to know if the story and characters is worth caring about like a Witcher III, like an Horizon or is it like MGSV where not so much?

So basically you have confirmation bias. Not really interested in trying to engage someone like that, but good luck!

 

[DeanBDean]

Had the same feeling about MGSV, was easily right in my opinion of it before I played it and while I put 68 hours into the game, if anything, I put too much time into that game and it simply wasn't worth that much of an investment for so many reasons, most of which just get a shrug and a free pass despite being bashed in so many other open world games.

Watching videos of Zelda and reading about it, the game just seems to be the same damn thing. Huge open world with several different things to do ala MGSV ala every open world game but with there being dozens of those same different things. Reading the OP, every one of my concerns without playing the game seem to be on point so if they're true without playing the game, how would I get any other conclusion when I do play the game? Especially when others who have completed the game are saying what I already know despite not playing the game yet?

The gameplay loop of Breath of the Wild is quite different from MGSV's. MGSV's loop is built around returning to and improving Mother Base. You do missions to generate money to improve Mother Base/research more stuff to do missions. The missions usually took place in the villages around Afghanistan/Africa. The villages had a lot of different ways to tackle the problem of sneaking through/eliminating all guards, but ultimately the majority of MGSV's missions were a variation of that.

Breath of the Wild does not have a central hub that the player essentially must return to between missions. It does not have an online system that it's trying to push that ties research to arbitrary timegates. Breath of the Wild's loop is more like find mission/side mission->on the way collect food/fight enemies to get loot and monster parts->complete mission. While this doesn't seem that different from MGSV at first glance, it's very rare that you don't get sidetracked. You're doing a sidemission, but you see a Shrine and stop to do it. Or you see a tower for a new area so you go to climb it. Or you see a village so you stop by it.

MGSV's world wasn't enjoyable for me to travel to from village to village. The MGSV missions where you were dropped far away from the objective and had to travel on your own were not fun for me, because I was just burning time until I could get to the fun part. But for me, in Breath of the Wild the fun part is the traveling.

 

[The Wart]

I feel like the majority of replies are saying that the level design isn't boring and is part of why it's fun, and you're just asserting that it's objectively bad and we're not noticing it or overlooking that.

Ding ding ding ding ding! I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. The landscape in BoTW is stuffed with things to do/see/interact with, to the extent that I have to make a conscious effort to stop poking around in nooks and crannies and actually get to my original destination. If the gameplay involved in that poking and exploring isn't compelling to you (OP), that's fine, but you seem to be completely misunderstanding what the people who disagree with you are arguing. We just don't think there's very much empty space.

And yeah, after 20 times walking back and forth through the same hallway in an Igavania the game would be better off with leaving them as empty space. Luckily in Zelda you could easily never retraverse the same route once in the entire game, even without fast travel!