TotK and BotW both share the same problem IMO, though TotK fares far far better. Theyre not Zelda games, they’re open world Ubisoft games with the Zelda name and way less bugs.
Both are locked to a console that can’t even properly run them. Playing on PC with better framerates and weapon durability disabled definitely help them feel more fun, but ultimately they give about as much fun as a game like Far Cry 5 or 6.
Once I completed the main quest I just haven’t ever gone back to them, and I probably never will. But I have replayed through Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Twilight Princess at least 5 times each.
Being in the same genre, how specific do you want? Open world fantasy? Elden Ring IMO. Zelda games? Pick any of the ones made after Zelda II and before BotW, CDi games not included, and you’re probably going to have a more “Zelda” experience. RPGs just in general? Probably Chrono Trigger or Divinity Original Sin 2.
I am having a rough time getting back to FC5 honestly. It is interesting in short bursts, but playing it for more than like 45 minutes becomes incredibly tiring. The nonstop spawning enemies, the main character being a literal vegetable unable to do anything for themselves, etc. I only just completed one area and started in Henbane River before dropping it to play Yakuza Zero instead. Maybe Ill go back to it eventually, but it just doesn’t hold my attention the same. Unfortunately, Yakuza Zero’s real estate side game has more compelling gamplay to me.
Even the story is not very interesting IMO. Cults are just not an interesting plot device in anything they are ever included in. They weren’t interesting to me in Silent Hill (which is why I really liked 2), they’re not interesting in RE4, heck the cult episodes of X-Files were some of the weakest in the series IMO. So you can imagine the eye rolling to be had when I started Far Cry 5 and found out that was the main story element. I didn’t do any research into the story and just went based on the fact that it was on sale for like $8 and had decent review scores. I didn’t want to accidentally spoil the story for myself, but the price was low enough that I don’t feel terribly robbed.
Don’t get me wrong, both games could have been better. Yes, the story was extremely weak at times and it feels like there was more emphasis on quantity of content instead of quality but overall I still had a pretty good time.
Personally, I think FC6 was the better game of the two, although both had extremely weak endings. But overall, it just had a bit more polish, between the vastly improved weapons customization, Giancarlo Esposito’s acting, and the main character having a much more believable story, not to mention an actual personality, instead of being somewhat of a blank slate with unclear motivations who basically turns up out of nowhere to wreck an entire county.
Either way, I don’t think I would have paid full price for either but for what I paid to get them on sale I was certainly decently entertained. The DLCs are garbage, however.
Haha, what.
Zelda 1 was open world.
Breath and Tears are more true to the franchise than any game since, but you’ll not see me tossing any of them into the bin out of some arbitrary genre loyalty.
Uh
The one that defined the franchise? Isn’t true to the franchise? It literally was the franchise in its time.
It’s the originator. It’s the roots in “get back to our roots”. Talking nonsense about “departures” is pretty dumb when the direction in which it departs is towards the first game in the series. That’s not a departure, that’s a return.
Zelda 1 started the franchise, but it doesn’t define it. Ask anyone the most definitive Zelda game, and most people will tell you Zelda 3: A Link to the Past, or Ocarina of Time (which I think is Zelda 4 but I am not sure 100%).
Notably, every mainline Zelda game after 3 followed a definitive formula that 3 started, which BotW and TotK ditched. TotK kinda tried to bring back some of the formula, and thats why I say TotK is far better than BotW, but it still wasn’t what most would expect from Zelda.
Every Zelda game (for the most part) is open world. They may have linear story progression, but most open world games are like that.
The N64 titles are open world and even allow variance in the order you complete tasks and they have side quests you discover naturally through game play.
Wind waker is very open world, alttp and it’s derivatives are open world.
Pretty much any open world game, including Ubisoft ones.
In botw I realized once I disabled weapon durability that there is very little reason to explore the world once I got a decent weapon; that part of the game is contrived exclusively to justify weapon durability. So the open world sucks.
Then the “dungeons”, the core and lifeblood of a Zelda game, are just one puzzle room that that takes 10 minutes. So it’s a bad Zelda game.
And I know it’s subjective but I just found the game boring. Like the game was made for young children so they couldn’t make it too interesting to play. There was nothing interesting, or novel about it other than the glider, which other games have copies since then, so it’s no longer unique. Compared to other open world games it was extremely bare bones. Even open world games before it had more stuff to do, and certainly more engaging combat.
It felt like a tech demo more than a game, and it’s only impressive in the condescending way a console game can be called impressive. “Oh you made this game to work on a potato battery? Wow! Good for you!”
On top of that, I never appreciated Nintendo’s business model of forcing me to buy a $300 console on top of $60 just to play the Mario, or the Zelda.
What was even original about the glider? Gliding / parachuting mechanics have been around forever. Just Cause had them ages ago. Even Spyro games in the 90’s had them.
I’m so glad to have read your criticism as it summed up how I felt about BotW. For context I am NOT a huge Zelda nerd but I played Twilight Princess back in the day and loved it. BotW got such press and rave reviews everywhere I turned that I finally pulled the trigger and bought a Switch just to play it. I played a few hours and was like… I can’t do this it is so boring.
I was talking about the mechanics, not the setting. AC and Far Cry jizz icons all over the map with a cinematic once you climb a tower, while Botw’s exploration is more organic and free-form.
The mechanics are the same, that’s my point. 800 korok seeds littered across the map, 150 copy paste shrines, towers to reveal new map areas. Just because they aren’t shown on a map doesn’t mean it’s not there or the primary game loop.
Also, the towers in botw play a cinematic when you get to the top.
No, they’re not, since Zelda encourages exploration. The Korok seeds are hidden in the environment, as well as the shrines. They only show up on the map after you’ve found them.
Far Cry shows you everything on the map once you’ve climbed the tower in the region. This leads to a checklist-like feeling, where you tick off all the icons, instead of actually engaging with the world.
The tower cinematic in Far Cry also shows you all the interesting locations in the region in the cutscene. Zelda doesn’t. In Zelda, you discover all that shit yourself with your binoculars.
What, the open world genre? Maybe Elden Ring, but tbh it would have been better had it not been open world.
I just don’t really get BotW and TotK, and fwiw, I am that, ‘played emulated with settings pumped for free’ person. They both just seem so repetitive, worth like, 5 hours of fun.
Edit: to be clear, I did not turn off item durability or change any game mechanics, just resolution and fps. Item durability is a crutch the game relies of for balance, andnits annoying, but isn’t related to the central complaint I have: game is repetative. So much is just, same kind of luzzle again, same kind of fight again, and no cool rewards that don’t break. I don’t get what the appeal is.
Huh, lots of opinions on BOTW and “if I disable a mechanic on PC, the game is not fun”.
I’ve enjoyed both botw and totk, but not to completion.
I do feel like they are both tech demo iterations.
Botw introducing actual physics and creativity as puzzle solving possibilities. Totk introducing “everything is physics” and relying on creativity for puzzle solving.
Botw story was mid. Totk story was better.
Botw dungeons were terrible. Totk dungeons were better, and some had a bit more girth/depth to them.
I feel like now that they’ve cracked the “everything is physics”, and iterated dungeon designs… The next one will hopefully feel a lot more Zelda.
At least, I hope so.
But, same genre…
What do you class totks genre as?
Right, disabled weapon durability. At which point there is no point to explore the map. That was the gist, right? So, I skipped a stage by describing the start and the end of the chain of events.
Weapon durability itself isn’t fun, but forces you to explore.
If you can’t be bothered reading dialog, so you skip it all, then say a game has no story, doesn’t make sense and never explains anything.
You are no longer having to read all the dialog, but you miss all the detail.
Short term gains long term pains.
Hello. I played the games on PC too, and turned off the stupid weapon degradation and had a BLAST playing through and exploring the game after the fact. So, no. Some of us just thought the durability thing was a waste of resources, and could’ve made the game much more digestible to those who think it is absolutely dog shit to even be included in a ZELDA title.
It’s a “cheat code” kind of thing. Are games more fun when you’re invincible? When you have the best weapon?
I used to play games with cheat codes. They don’t make the game “more fun” outright. They allow you to condense some fun into a shorter chunk of time, then the game subsequently has less replayability.
Deactivating weapon durability might make the game “more fun” in the short term, at the cost of reduced long-term playability. So it’s no surprise that people who activated this particular cheat code had an experience like that of most cheat codes, reduced long-term enjoyment.
Who’s insulted? You admitted that an element of difficulty made the game too hard. I don’t think people will be lining up to insult me about that… except perhaps people in denial about finding a Zelda game too hard. But why would I care what they think?
The game literally hands weapons out like candy, and the master sword regens in like 5 mins… sounds like you just wanted to use the “best” weapon you found and never downgrade again instead of getting creative with all the monster parts, which is boring as fuck.
I don’t hate either side of this and beat BotW on switch with no mods. As a compulsive looter from Borderlands, juggling what to drop or not drop became annoying when I knew how much more game there was to play. I wanted to keep exploring everything and not worry about being equipped correctly when I was focused on exploring the world. I understand the drive to build and prep for the next big battle. I also just want to play through the world and not add hours of item management when there’s already many more hours of playing. To each their own I guess.
That’s a fair point! The game definitely does drag in the exploration part towards the end if you’re trying to do all the shrines and light up the things in the underground. I used a simple hover bike made of two fans and a seat to get around, and it still took forever. I can’t imagine just running around everywhere on foot, and a lot of the topography (especially underground) didn’t seem too friendly to using a ground vehicle…
If TotK is mid then what’s a great game in the same genre?
If you say BG3 it will be obvious you didn’t read the italicised part.
TotK and BotW both share the same problem IMO, though TotK fares far far better. Theyre not Zelda games, they’re open world Ubisoft games with the Zelda name and way less bugs.
Both are locked to a console that can’t even properly run them. Playing on PC with better framerates and weapon durability disabled definitely help them feel more fun, but ultimately they give about as much fun as a game like Far Cry 5 or 6.
Once I completed the main quest I just haven’t ever gone back to them, and I probably never will. But I have replayed through Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Twilight Princess at least 5 times each.
Being in the same genre, how specific do you want? Open world fantasy? Elden Ring IMO. Zelda games? Pick any of the ones made after Zelda II and before BotW, CDi games not included, and you’re probably going to have a more “Zelda” experience. RPGs just in general? Probably Chrono Trigger or Divinity Original Sin 2.
Downvote me if you must but I finished AND enjoyed both Far Cry 5 and 6.
I am having a rough time getting back to FC5 honestly. It is interesting in short bursts, but playing it for more than like 45 minutes becomes incredibly tiring. The nonstop spawning enemies, the main character being a literal vegetable unable to do anything for themselves, etc. I only just completed one area and started in Henbane River before dropping it to play Yakuza Zero instead. Maybe Ill go back to it eventually, but it just doesn’t hold my attention the same. Unfortunately, Yakuza Zero’s real estate side game has more compelling gamplay to me.
Even the story is not very interesting IMO. Cults are just not an interesting plot device in anything they are ever included in. They weren’t interesting to me in Silent Hill (which is why I really liked 2), they’re not interesting in RE4, heck the cult episodes of X-Files were some of the weakest in the series IMO. So you can imagine the eye rolling to be had when I started Far Cry 5 and found out that was the main story element. I didn’t do any research into the story and just went based on the fact that it was on sale for like $8 and had decent review scores. I didn’t want to accidentally spoil the story for myself, but the price was low enough that I don’t feel terribly robbed.
Don’t get me wrong, both games could have been better. Yes, the story was extremely weak at times and it feels like there was more emphasis on quantity of content instead of quality but overall I still had a pretty good time.
Personally, I think FC6 was the better game of the two, although both had extremely weak endings. But overall, it just had a bit more polish, between the vastly improved weapons customization, Giancarlo Esposito’s acting, and the main character having a much more believable story, not to mention an actual personality, instead of being somewhat of a blank slate with unclear motivations who basically turns up out of nowhere to wreck an entire county.
Either way, I don’t think I would have paid full price for either but for what I paid to get them on sale I was certainly decently entertained. The DLCs are garbage, however.
Haha, what.
Zelda 1 was open world.
Breath and Tears are more true to the franchise than any game since, but you’ll not see me tossing any of them into the bin out of some arbitrary genre loyalty.
Zelda 1 was the only game in the franchise that was open world until BotW came out. No, it was not the most true to the franchise.
Uh
The one that defined the franchise? Isn’t true to the franchise? It literally was the franchise in its time.
It’s the originator. It’s the roots in “get back to our roots”. Talking nonsense about “departures” is pretty dumb when the direction in which it departs is towards the first game in the series. That’s not a departure, that’s a return.
So the latest Prince of Persia isn’t a departure from the usual formula because the Apple II PoP was a sidescroller?
Yes
Zelda 1 started the franchise, but it doesn’t define it. Ask anyone the most definitive Zelda game, and most people will tell you Zelda 3: A Link to the Past, or Ocarina of Time (which I think is Zelda 4 but I am not sure 100%).
Notably, every mainline Zelda game after 3 followed a definitive formula that 3 started, which BotW and TotK ditched. TotK kinda tried to bring back some of the formula, and thats why I say TotK is far better than BotW, but it still wasn’t what most would expect from Zelda.
“Oh no, Zelda’s too much like Zelda”
Is everyone forgetting about Wind Waker? That was open world
Every Zelda game (for the most part) is open world. They may have linear story progression, but most open world games are like that.
The N64 titles are open world and even allow variance in the order you complete tasks and they have side quests you discover naturally through game play.
Wind waker is very open world, alttp and it’s derivatives are open world.
Pretty much any open world game, including Ubisoft ones.
In botw I realized once I disabled weapon durability that there is very little reason to explore the world once I got a decent weapon; that part of the game is contrived exclusively to justify weapon durability. So the open world sucks.
Then the “dungeons”, the core and lifeblood of a Zelda game, are just one puzzle room that that takes 10 minutes. So it’s a bad Zelda game.
And I know it’s subjective but I just found the game boring. Like the game was made for young children so they couldn’t make it too interesting to play. There was nothing interesting, or novel about it other than the glider, which other games have copies since then, so it’s no longer unique. Compared to other open world games it was extremely bare bones. Even open world games before it had more stuff to do, and certainly more engaging combat.
It felt like a tech demo more than a game, and it’s only impressive in the condescending way a console game can be called impressive. “Oh you made this game to work on a potato battery? Wow! Good for you!”
On top of that, I never appreciated Nintendo’s business model of forcing me to buy a $300 console on top of $60 just to play the Mario, or the Zelda.
What was even original about the glider? Gliding / parachuting mechanics have been around forever. Just Cause had them ages ago. Even Spyro games in the 90’s had them.
I’m so glad to have read your criticism as it summed up how I felt about BotW. For context I am NOT a huge Zelda nerd but I played Twilight Princess back in the day and loved it. BotW got such press and rave reviews everywhere I turned that I finally pulled the trigger and bought a Switch just to play it. I played a few hours and was like… I can’t do this it is so boring.
But weapons are a reward for exploring, because exploration is the game.
Sorry, you can’t really compare a game like Zelda to spreadsheets with todo-items.
The exploration mechanics alone were masterfully done in a way that only Nintendo had both the budget and the courage to experiment with.
Most other open worlds just shit all these icons with busywork on your map, while Botw actually fostered exploration and curiosity.
The exploration in BoTW/ToTK was just exploration with shipping lists.
“I need new weapons, food, and some Korok seeds. Where’s my spreadsheet of Fibonacci numbers so I can remember how many seeds I need”
No, it was like"ohh, what’s over there? That there looks interesting! Look, a shrine! Let’s get to that tower to find more interesting places!"
I never tried to stats out my BotW run.
Just because you like the setting doesn’t make it intrinsically more interesting.
Plenty of people feel that way about far cry and assassin’s creed, it’s exciting for them to climb the next tower and see what is in new areas.
I was talking about the mechanics, not the setting. AC and Far Cry jizz icons all over the map with a cinematic once you climb a tower, while Botw’s exploration is more organic and free-form.
The mechanics are the same, that’s my point. 800 korok seeds littered across the map, 150 copy paste shrines, towers to reveal new map areas. Just because they aren’t shown on a map doesn’t mean it’s not there or the primary game loop.
Also, the towers in botw play a cinematic when you get to the top.
No, they’re not, since Zelda encourages exploration. The Korok seeds are hidden in the environment, as well as the shrines. They only show up on the map after you’ve found them.
Far Cry shows you everything on the map once you’ve climbed the tower in the region. This leads to a checklist-like feeling, where you tick off all the icons, instead of actually engaging with the world.
The tower cinematic in Far Cry also shows you all the interesting locations in the region in the cutscene. Zelda doesn’t. In Zelda, you discover all that shit yourself with your binoculars.
What, the open world genre? Maybe Elden Ring, but tbh it would have been better had it not been open world.
I just don’t really get BotW and TotK, and fwiw, I am that, ‘played emulated with settings pumped for free’ person. They both just seem so repetitive, worth like, 5 hours of fun.
Edit: to be clear, I did not turn off item durability or change any game mechanics, just resolution and fps. Item durability is a crutch the game relies of for balance, andnits annoying, but isn’t related to the central complaint I have: game is repetative. So much is just, same kind of luzzle again, same kind of fight again, and no cool rewards that don’t break. I don’t get what the appeal is.
Tunic?
Huh, lots of opinions on BOTW and “if I disable a mechanic on PC, the game is not fun”.
I’ve enjoyed both botw and totk, but not to completion.
I do feel like they are both tech demo iterations.
Botw introducing actual physics and creativity as puzzle solving possibilities. Totk introducing “everything is physics” and relying on creativity for puzzle solving.
Botw story was mid. Totk story was better.
Botw dungeons were terrible. Totk dungeons were better, and some had a bit more girth/depth to them.
I feel like now that they’ve cracked the “everything is physics”, and iterated dungeon designs… The next one will hopefully feel a lot more Zelda.
At least, I hope so.
But, same genre…
What do you class totks genre as?
To be clear, disabling weapon durability made the game more fun.
The mechanic itself was ass. I wouldn’t have played further without disabling it.
Same tbh
Right, disabled weapon durability. At which point there is no point to explore the map. That was the gist, right? So, I skipped a stage by describing the start and the end of the chain of events.
Weapon durability itself isn’t fun, but forces you to explore.
If you can’t be bothered reading dialog, so you skip it all, then say a game has no story, doesn’t make sense and never explains anything.
You are no longer having to read all the dialog, but you miss all the detail.
Short term gains long term pains.
Hello. I played the games on PC too, and turned off the stupid weapon degradation and had a BLAST playing through and exploring the game after the fact. So, no. Some of us just thought the durability thing was a waste of resources, and could’ve made the game much more digestible to those who think it is absolutely dog shit to even be included in a ZELDA title.
Me, 13 hours ago.
It’s a “cheat code” kind of thing. Are games more fun when you’re invincible? When you have the best weapon?
I used to play games with cheat codes. They don’t make the game “more fun” outright. They allow you to condense some fun into a shorter chunk of time, then the game subsequently has less replayability.
Deactivating weapon durability might make the game “more fun” in the short term, at the cost of reduced long-term playability. So it’s no surprise that people who activated this particular cheat code had an experience like that of most cheat codes, reduced long-term enjoyment.
Me, 13 hours ago.
Ok, so pc gamers have a lower tolerance for setbacks than Switch gamers?
Lol sorry I insulted your personality… I mean this video game made by a corporation. Sorry, easy to mix up.
Who’s insulted? You admitted that an element of difficulty made the game too hard. I don’t think people will be lining up to insult me about that… except perhaps people in denial about finding a Zelda game too hard. But why would I care what they think?
Too hard or too tedious?
What exactly is it about having to go fight the same enemies over and over again to farm weapons from them that makes it more challenging or engaging?
The game literally hands weapons out like candy, and the master sword regens in like 5 mins… sounds like you just wanted to use the “best” weapon you found and never downgrade again instead of getting creative with all the monster parts, which is boring as fuck.
Like it’s my fault there’s nothing else to do in their “open world”.
I don’t hate either side of this and beat BotW on switch with no mods. As a compulsive looter from Borderlands, juggling what to drop or not drop became annoying when I knew how much more game there was to play. I wanted to keep exploring everything and not worry about being equipped correctly when I was focused on exploring the world. I understand the drive to build and prep for the next big battle. I also just want to play through the world and not add hours of item management when there’s already many more hours of playing. To each their own I guess.
That’s a fair point! The game definitely does drag in the exploration part towards the end if you’re trying to do all the shrines and light up the things in the underground. I used a simple hover bike made of two fans and a seat to get around, and it still took forever. I can’t imagine just running around everywhere on foot, and a lot of the topography (especially underground) didn’t seem too friendly to using a ground vehicle…
I haven’t played TOTK, but I tried BOTW and the entire time I was playing it I wished I was playing Just Cause.
Speaking of sequels that are good on their own right but are disappointing because of what they could have been: Just Cause 3 and 4
Personally I never played 4. JC 3 is a beautiful game though.
Eh, it is mid and i say this as a fan. Zeltik was bang on with his ‘disappointing masterpiece’ . None of the obsessive replayability of BOTW