Yeah but the process could've been a bit more streamlined. What if Wolfenstein: TNO had you manually pressing a button to pick up every piece of new ammo and health instead of automatically doing it when you walk over themmmmmmm-ohhh wait.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jimquisition: Weapon Durability, Fanbase Fragility (Mar. 13th, 2017)
- Thread starter L~A
- Start date
- Status
Doom is quite generous with ammo, but it's far from unlimited, particularly with some of the more powerful weapons. This is a good thing, as it makes finding that ammo special.
What? No, not at all. The combat in Zelda has a good amount of depth, and this is aided by the fact that you have to manage your various weapons.
You can grind and axe to what a part of the company do and praise another part for what they do without "violating trust" for opinions, whatever that means.
Oh you mean the same sites who live off ad revenue and hype shit like NMS and never does any true journalism that get corporations angry at them, like a real journalist would, i.e Jason Press Sneak Fuck
Clickbait only works if you get ad revenue, he don't. He goes so far as pitting corporations against each other claims to keep it entirely neutral from ads, even as far as pitting Nintendo against themselves
youd be out of your planet if you figured a Zelda getting less than an 8 or 9 from the mainstream media like IGN, guess they really liked it and didn't mind anything
But isn't that a right? Opinions and weight of what you think is good and what ruins he experience for you differs wildly and they are explained.
"""Hates"""
If you watched the video in question you'd know that he's not actually saying to pirate and steal their games, but that nintendos own view of copyright law is so absurd and twisted you could
Really? A slap in the face to whom, because he gave his reasons and you're the one slapping anything not high enough in your own view as somehow on the level of a world war regardless of what you call your comparison
😂
🤔
Are you sure?
I thought websites like Kotaku and Eurogamer did away with scores so people would focus on the text as the number undermined the paragraphs created, far too many times on Eurogamer I'd see remarks like "This reads like a 8 why give it a 7?" and other similar nonsense.
SpiceMelange
Member
What? no. The game did not drop enough ammo / fuel to support a single gun playstyle. You had to switch it up
Deckard Chapel
Banned
1). "Makes" is in quotation marks because as of late his videos aren't remotely close to the original reason why anyone tuned into his channel. They are now mainly all self-indulgent, self-centered, whiney "I'm right and here's why!" diatribes. There's nothing entertaining about them except that he whines and pisses all over everything and that's not entertaining to watch. If you want to see that sort of incessant narcissism, just watch an episode of The Kardashians.
2). I can't think of anyone, anywhere that would want to play a realistic or semi-realstic FPS game with unlimited ammo straight out of the gate. Not only would that remove all the challenge from the game, it would absolutely strip the game of it's wow-factor and make the systems and novelty built into it worthless.
That's something reserved for cheat codes and unlockables.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Please don't use terms that describe scientific concepts when you don't know what these concepts are. The law of averages says nothing about individual data points, obviously.
Also, as a huge Nintendo- and Zelda-fan I have to say I am surprised it took this long for some more negative reviews to come about and Stirling definitely has argued his grade well. In fact, depending on where I put the focus, I could probably write a review anywhere from 6/10 to 10/10 fpr Breath of the Wild, simply because it has so many extreme heights and so many nagging points, that it really comes down to what you value more. Just for a quick rundown of things that I see as significant flaws in the game:
- weapon durability
- random weather effects messing with player's progress (necessitating waiting or a change of the goal persued)
- absurdely strong attacks by some standard enemies
- some extreme recycling in form of the tests of strength (7 major tests that play exactly alike? Really?)
- boring visual presentation of the shrines (no variety)
- clunky cooking and corresponding busywork to accure the required ingredients
- no clear sense of progression in puzzle complexity; many chrines ending after an introductory step to a puzzle idea, never to be fully explored
There are so many things one might dislike about BotW that I find it surprising reviews were not way more mixed. It, of course, speaks to the fantastic work Nintendo has put into the world design, and I'd argue, out of the modern open world games (that I know at least) this is the only one that qualifies as optimised towards mechanical value rather thanplain vistas. There are (sadly, from my point of view) still some sizable "pockets of emptiness", but contrasting this world for instance to XCX you can see that BotW is actually incomparably superior,
BouncyFrag
Member
daninthemix
Member
Yes, instead now they get comments like "This reads like an Essential, why did you give it a Recommended?". It solved nothing.
Gravy Boat
Member
Probably the first person ever to call Doom or Wolfenstein 'realistic'. But again, what about the list of links I posted where Jim positively reviews almost every major First Party Nintendo release of the past year or two? You just gonna ignore that and keep on the 'Jim just hates Nintendo' train?
Com Truise
Member
I don't get it. You pick up weapons, use them up, collect more weapons and it's imposssible to run out of them. There is no point in being afraid of breaking "cool weapons" because there are no cool weapons. Elemental weapons are pointless because fire and ice arrows do the same job better, so the only difference are damage values and getting attached to your sword that does 10 points more than your other shit is a bit dumb.
Of all the things that are wrong with this game choosing to focus on this rather inconsequential gameplay mechanic makes no sense to me.
Of all the things that are wrong with this game choosing to focus on this rather inconsequential gameplay mechanic makes no sense to me.
Professor Beef
Banned
Of course he is, just like he ignored Sterling's valid reason for going off on the fanatical side of the Zelda fandom.
Ascenion
Member
I'm not saying that he should. No reviewer with integrity should. Sadly most people do care about the meta or need we remember what Bethesda did to Obsidian? I'm just saying that they need to realize that when you let metacritic use your review the number is all that matters and it uses their scale. Metacritic takes the criticism part away and leaves only the number and most people aren't gonna read the review. The game scale is skewed for some reason. If it was like the film scale this wouldn't be an issue.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
I'm not one to play realistic or semi-realistic FPS (I hate the genre), but I am quite positive that the game's challenge does not come primarily from managing ammo in such games. At lest usually not.
Also, it does not stem from that area for Zelda BotW either. Other than the start of the game and some special island, I have exlusively used bombs and a certain indestructible weapon in BotW and I did not find the game all too difficult with these restrictions either. A bit annoying at times, yes, but not difficult to the point that I would deem "destructible weapon management" the key point to the game's challenge.
Pressing a button to pick something up can be very satasfying, it certainly is in Zelda for me. It adds to the game's "feel". Back when Dishonored 1 came out, Arkane talked about their decision to make you press the "e" button multiple times to pick up multiple coins rather than having every coin in the vicinity sucked up with a single press. The rationale (which I very much agree with) was that pressing the button multiple times was more tactile and more satasfying than pressing it only once. A similar sensibility has been employed in Zelda, and it benefits the game.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
20 years is a long time.
How da fuq can something "read like an essential" I don't even.
For such a subjective game design aspect, we sure are in a colossal shitstorm vortex. I mean you can analyze system and its implications to game play, but in the end it's 100% subjective whether you like the weapons breaking down or not. There's nothing objective about it.
Just goes to show this mess is not about the weapon system at all!
Just goes to show this mess is not about the weapon system at all!
Still completely baffled that people think the weapon durability system adds anything to the game, while in the same breath saying it's not a problem since there's an abundance of weapons. You really don't have to manage your weapon usage because you're never going to run out. And even if it were the case that you might run out of weapons, it still doesn't add anything to the game besides frustration.
If you never, ever engage in combat in the open world, you will still waltz into every boss encounter with a full stash or weapons. They're lying around everywhere on the ground and in Shrines. The weapon durability system also has the knock-on effect that so many treasure chests hold terrible prizes since they're mostly weapons you don't really need.
If you never, ever engage in combat in the open world, you will still waltz into every boss encounter with a full stash or weapons. They're lying around everywhere on the ground and in Shrines. The weapon durability system also has the knock-on effect that so many treasure chests hold terrible prizes since they're mostly weapons you don't really need.
You don't have to grind for weapons the mobs always drop the weapons they are using
Hierophant
Banned
its frankly just sad as hell
Really says a lot about people's priorities when they can dedicate multiple hours to walls and walls of text about some dudes opinion on a videogame
don't a few Nintendo games tell you to take a break and go outside for a bit?
It's not inconsequential. It's a manic that a large number of people hate full stop, no matter how well it's implemented.
And they're not wrong for feeling that way. Plenty of people are hoarders, collectors, a touch compulsive etc. This alone is why BOTW is a great game, but not perfect.
Deckard Chapel
Banned
The Law Of Averages:
"The principle that supposes most future events are likely to balance any past deviation from a presumed average."
So, me assuming Jimquisition would score BOTW lower than all of the highest scores previously given by the major media outlets isn't proof that he was literally going against the law of averages?? Lol
If you like the system, cool. But lets think for a second that the devs could not have designed the game around non-breakable weapons i.e. Introducing a wider variety of weapon classes with diverse movesets instead of another sword or spear that hits harder.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Nah, thats way too loaded. Instead, lets stay on-topic and use this review debacle as an example.
A: Jim Sterling reviewed the game and felt it deserved a 7. The backlash occurred as he was making a video about weapon durability and he decided to finish up early and use it as a platform to respond. His goal was to review the game.
B: Jim Sterling, harbouring a long felt hatred towards Nintendo, decided to review a game low on purpose. Somehow, he knew this would elicit a huge reaction from the companys fans and had already prepared a response video to further stir-up shit. His goal during this was to get more people to give him money and increase his notoriety.
Would you say these statements lay out the arguments fairly? If so, which one of these is the least complicated solution? Remember: obvious =/= simple.
Ascenion
Member
Same thing basically. The number itself is the issue. It completely undermines and invalidates the actual review. If you give someone's favorite game a 5 chances are they aren't gonna care why they just see that 5. Jim gave Zelda a 7, people saw a yellow 7 on metacritic and then flew off the handle likely without ever knowing why it got a 7 aside from what they hear other people saying that actually read the review.
Swords = ammo in BotW.
There are so many weapons all the time, and Jim has went to great lengths to make sure to make his point in the video, by playing the game really really bad.
Watching the video without sound:
1. He doesn't pick up weapons from the ground during the fights unless it's a really bad weapon, like a wooden stick.
2. When a weapon breaks, he selects a old (bad) weapon from his inventory, rather than picking up a better one from the ground. In the sequence starting at 1:12, he doesn't pick up the Traveler's Claymore (attack damage 11), instead he selects a spear with attack damage 3 from his inventory. For example. Same in the sequence at 2:00.
3. He fights with axes (used to cut down trees) and sledgehammers (used for mining)
4. When the damage warning comes, he never throws the weapon at the enemy for an extra damage attack and pushback.
5. In the sequence starting at 3:11, there are multiple weapons available to him on the ground. He doesn't take anyone of them when he passes them. Since he never takes new weapons from the ground, he only have 4 (!) weapons left in the inventory at 3:40.
6. In the sequence that starts at 4:22, he has a weapon inventory that is unrealistically bad at that stage in the game (after the Great Plateau). He basically only have a few weapons that are available at the very start of the game + a cleaning mop.
7. Hitting a weapon against a shield or other hard material will obviously damage the weapon. Yet, he continues to hit the bokoblins on the shields?
I'm actually surprised that he didn't included footage of mining minerals with a sword. That will break the sword in notime.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
That wasn't him playing. He said so at the beginning of the video.
The footage in the video wasn't recorded by him. It was recorded by somebody else, who loves the game and gave it a 10. I hope this helps.
This goes back to one of my previous posts today, no-one is going to take into consideration the work that goes behind the scenes of a game and give an A for effort and have that influence their overall critique of a game, what happened to Obsidian was shitty but that was a shit deal from inception anyway, if the device feel it's costing them sales they're free to sue metacritic or Jim Sterling and go all Digital Homicide because that went well.
Professor Beef
Banned
If you watched the video with sound, then you would know that's not him playing since he clarifies that at the beginning of the video.
Com Truise
Member
I'm a hoarder and collector. If the game itself tells me it's all disposable garbage then that's how stuff gets treated. I'm not going to collect and hoard garbage.
I'd give Fallout 4 a 10/10. I love the game.
Deckard Chapel
Banned
Im, glad I'm wrong then 🤔
Any game where you use realistic weapons that have to be manually reloaded for continued use would be considered semi-realistic, given the surroundings and narrative being science fiction or otherwise.
You are a hoot.
How many classes do you need?
Swords
Claymores
Spears
Halberds
Boomerangs
Rods
Clubs
Axes
Sickles
Tools (Torch/Cleaning mop/Pitchforks/Soup ladle/etc)
Vegetables (Boko leaf/Tree branch)
Magnesis
So you're saying that Vanquish's use of limited ammo forces you to use it more efficiently and think about when you want to use your better weapons. Huh.
Limited weapon ammo will never be fun. No one can convince me otherwise.
Jim is openly antagonistic to Nintendo to a personal level, it was clear to everyone that he his score for BotW was a chance for him to stick it up to them and he wouldn´t let it pass. I already said this in the OT, but his review reads like if he started by giving BotW a 10 and then took off points for everything he didn´t like, while not giving value to the good things the game does, as if they were something every open world game does in a poor attempt to validate his already made up opinion that this is not a 10/10. He goes on and on about the things he didn´t like in the game, while barely touching those that are good or right out out not even mention them. He can´t help it even ends up the review with a sentence which can translate to "see, this isn´t a 10/10 game, everyone but me is wrong, the other reviewers are dumb". I don´t think he should review Nintendo games anymore. Well, he can do whatever he wants, but anyone giving credit to his reviews are just playing themselves.
Gravy Boat
Member
Absolutely not. There's nothing realistic about Overwatch for example. YOU can consider it realistic if you want, but it's not some objective metric.
Again, you're continuing to ignore the fact that Jim Sterling positively reviewed practicaly every first part Nintendo release of the past 2 years, including several Zelda games. Where are you getting the 'Jim hates Nintendo' nonsense from?
Lanrutcon
Member
Jim did what?
HE DID WHAT?
Ok, I take back everything I've said: Jim is dead to me. DEAD.
Where's the 40 page thread so I can join in the outrage?
Still heart you Jim
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
What significance does a claim about "most future events" have for a single data point?
Ascenion
Member
Yeah I agree you can't give an A for effort. At the same time Jim probably agrees that the 7 on metacritic isn't reflective of his true opinion of BOTW. I'm just saying metacritic is the problem here.
Most of those weapons function identically in combat, some might just be slower than others. Also, separating the tree branch into its own category is ridiculous, especially since it's useless and also wood isn't a vegetable.
The same can be said for a lot of first person shooters though, but probably not any good ones.
More weapon movesets would be great for sure. Honestly, if I have any problem with Zelda, it's that I'd like there to be about 3 additional movesets for some added variety among weapons.
However, more movesets or not, a game with the size and breadth of Breath of the Wild would have a real problem if super powerful weapons lasted forever. The game would need to be rebalanced around that idea, and given that discovery and exploration are such key factors in the game, I don't think the rebalancing would be for the better.
Also, to be clear, even though this is a thread that is largely arguing against the 7/10 score that Jim gave Zelda, I have no problem with that score. The score he gave is his opinion and his perogrative and that's all good. He doesn't like weapon durability, and that's cool. I totally disagree, but that doesn't make his opinion any less valid.
Wesley-Sigma
Member
Completely missed my point. Judging by your reply too, I can tell that you're just here to argue. Won't waste my time with you any further.
Bye!
Thanks! That's even more confusing - why would anyone approach battles in that way? It's really like playing the game on a "mine minerals with a sword" level.
Because Jim Sterling has a problem with Nintendo's legal team and how they handle Youtube, people believe he has a problem with their development teams. By that logic, he would also hold a grudge against the MGS5 team because of Konami's shit management, but he reviewed that game positively.
Sure, he could have given it a 10, but 9.5 is perfectly respectable.
Gravy Boat
Member
Yeah, it's really ridiculous. I honestly don't even watch Jim Sterlings stuff (aside from the Digital Foundry saga) but I can't help but be amazed at the lengths people will go to to discredit a review that was still mostly positive, simply because they enjoyed the game more.
- Status