Poll of the Day > I still really don't understand the love for Breath of the Wild

(+) Yeah! (+)

As a long time fan of the series, Zelda games to me have a clear formula: Solve puzzles/quests in the overworld to gain access to temple, complete part of temple, get new item, complete rest of temple, beat boss with new item strategies, gain access to new part of overworld, and so on.

Skyward Sword ditched a portion of that formula and got a lot of backlash for it. BoTW discards the formula almost entirely and. . . is one of the highest rated games in the series? To me it just looks incredibly bland and repetitive and simple. Plus degrading items. Ew.

What's so awesome about the game that I'm completely missing? Or is it really just a massive case of blind fanboyism/baby's first open world game?
---

If only we lived in a world where you could form opinions on things without opposing opinions ruining everything for you.
---

Because its fun

Breath of the Wild is fine, but I preferred it when it was trying to be a Zelda game.

Combat/weapon bs was atrocious.

But open world sandbox games are the flavour right now and Zelda did it well. But I had more fun with other games in the same family, like Spider-Man and Horizon.
---

Did you play it? It's one of the best open world games of all time

I can't imagine liking the degrading items part, so I'll see how the rest of it is. That's what makes sequels tough. How much can you change to keep it from feeling stale without giving up the 'feel' of the franchise.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Because its fun

---

MNTwins1991 posted...

Did you play it? It's one of the best open world games of all time

Yes I have played it a bit. I got massively bored. A lot of running around with nothing to do, enemies are easy as hell, nothing whatsoever to challenge me as a player. The only thing that really struck me as being well done was the physics engine. Otherwise it's just empty. It looks good, for sure, but it feels really hollow. Like they built a game world but forgot to populate it with actual meaningful content.
---

I played and completed it and personally i found it abit crap, going from xenoblade 2 to breath of the wild left like a big step down.

man101 posted...

Skyward Sword ditched a portion of that formula and got a lot of backlash for it.

Ha! No. Skyward Sword's problem is how exactly the Zelda formula it was that you could predict every last thing that happens.

Oh, a bow? let me guess - the boss is going to have a big glowing eye
---

Lokarin posted...

man101 posted...

Skyward Sword ditched a portion of that formula and got a lot of backlash for it.

Ha! No. Skyward Sword's problem is how exactly the Zelda formula it was that you could predict every last thing that happens.

Oh, a bow? let me guess - the boss is going to have a big glowing eye

I was referring to the fact that it ditched the connected, progressive overworld and instead just gave you a warp point to a new area whenever you beat the previous one.

Can't comment on the game as a whole because I only beat about 1/3 of it maybe. Didn't care for it. Maybe because it was also just a sub par uninspired Zelda game in general as you're suggesting.
---

see the problem is youre trying to play it like a zelda game. theres a reason the promotional material said forget everything you know about zelda. it is a functional and technical reboot.

i also think youre slightly misinformed about why people didnt like skyward sword. a HUGE part of the divisiveness of that game was technical issues, as in input not registering. some players have that and some didnt. its also not really like botw in any way so its hard to compare otherwise

that being said botw isnt perfect - the weapon system needed some work and i wouldve liked some more fleshed out dungeons. but if youre approaching it looking for a zelda game like the others youll be disappointed because it is very highly an exploration game
---

Sefrig posted...

if youre approaching it looking for a zelda game like the others youll be disappointed because it is very highly an exploration game

That answers my question then I guess. Also explains why my one friend who never played any of the others bought and loved it.
---

Breath of the Wild felt like the series finally made it to the current gen. The world felt properly connected, there was a real challenge, and the game didn't feel like you were restricted.

The weapon system was bizarre, but it really reminded you how vulnerable you were. It helped further encourage using stealth to get by, rather than fighting every enemy (although, the difficulty of enemies should already do that).

Easily the best Zelda game yet, finally dethroning Ocarina of Time in my opinion. Hopefully this is where the series heads from here on.
---

faramir77 posted...

Easily the best Zelda game yet, finally dethroning Ocarina of Time in my opinion. Hopefully this is where the series heads from here on.

This must be how people who loved the original Fallout games felt when Bethesda took over. They've literally changed the entire thing and it's essentially only still "Zelda" because it keeps the same characters and general story outline. If this is the new direction for the series then I guess I'm done playing them because it's not really the same game at all.
---

t's not that great. Not a true Zelda game.

Don't give in to the hype

I haven't liked anything since OoT (having seen demos) and I haven't played anything since The Wind Waker.
---

guy12345 posted...

t's not that great. Not a true Zelda game.

Don't give in to the hype

Yeah but for reasons I can't fathom it was so successful they probably will use it as the template for all the games going forward.
---

man101 posted...

Sefrig posted...

if youre approaching it looking for a zelda game like the others youll be disappointed because it is very highly an exploration game

That answers my question then I guess. Also explains why my one friend who never played any of the others bought and loved it.

Wow. Hadn't heard that and it's not good news. I've never played a WRPG.

When you say you played it a bit, about how many hours is that?
---

Sarcasthma posted...

When you say you played it a bit, about how many hours is that?

I played it for 2 or so. I've watched it being played for considerably more than that. I've never seen anything interesting happen. Even fighting the big ogres is repetitive and simple.
---

Personally I liked it. But I also liked Skyward Sword. I didnt have any problem with either, tbh. I liked the original Zelda Formula, but it does get kind of stale, sometimes. I mean, Zelda has always been my favorite franchise. This game was nice, though. You still have the Divine beast, which were small Dungeons/temples. But I like how they were designed and you had to control the beast to continue through. And I loved the shrines. There were like a room in a dungeon/temple. Some were even pretty long. Having all the regular items from the start also meant puzzles werent as easy. With the old formula, you go through using all your previously gained items, but mostly the one you got from the last dungeon. Once you get the new item, use that for the rest of the dungeon and the boss. In this one, you just had to figure it out. And some could be solved multiple ways. Same with bosses. So, it actually had more of a puzzly feel to it... And puzzles that actually made you think. More so than pushing a block or something. Dont get me wrong. I love the old formula for Zelda. And almost all the games (not so much Zelda II, & TP wasnt my favorite). But I really like how this game was. Also, being busy and having a lot on my schedule meant that having those shrines were way better to complete in a short time rather than having to figure out a dungeon while super busy...

The weapon durability was not my favorite things, especially since you cant carry much at first. But later on, its not that bad. You can carry a ton of weapons. And the best ones can be like rebuilt and have very specific spawn points. And you can buy/make the ancient weapons. So, even that isnt much of a problem anymore...
---

I thought it was a refreshing (and beautiful) new take on the series.. I put 416 hours in it
---

I liked it quite a bit and I'm a huge legend of Zelda fan.. so iunno? Move on?

The series was getting stale and it showed real bad in Skyward Sword although that wasn't the only issue. I think Nintendo realized this and decided to do something different hence the name, it was exactly what the series needed. I like it but there are still some flaws.
---

man101 posted...

I played it for 2 or so.

oh lmao you haven't even played it then. go back and play it
---

Sefrig posted...

man101 posted...

I played it for 2 or so.

oh lmao you haven't even played it then. go back and play it

I picked it up and played it from a file that was already started. Some really long, story heavy games can get away with not being super interesting for the first two hours. NO game should ever be boring for two hours in the middle.

xjayguyx posted...

I liked it quite a bit and I'm a huge legend of Zelda fan.. so iunno? Move on?

I'm not losing any sleep over it. It just baffles me. And if this is the direction it's going now I'm kinda sad because essentially that means the Zelda series is dead and they're just pasting the assets on a new kind of game. Which actually happens a lot I guess so I don't know why I'm surprised. Devs never want to risk a new IP, they'd rather just redirect an existing series.
---

MNTwins1991 posted...

It's one of the best open world games of all time

But it's still an open world game. With all the problems that open world games always have.
---

MNTwins1991 posted...

Did you play it? It's one of the best open world games of all time

It pales in comparison to the original Legend of Zelda.

The weapon degradation system got a little annoying in practice, but I did appreciate the basic theme they were going for with it (starting at a major disadvantage and having to scavenge to survive). I was also pretty disappointed in the number of combat shrines, especially once I got into late-game gear and even the major trials were kind of a joke. Otherwise, I quite enjoyed the game. The Zelda-style puzzle-solving was still there, it was just broken up into Shrines and smaller dungeons instead of larger dungeons. It was different, but it was fun.

man101 posted...

I picked it up and played it from a file that was already started. Some really long, story heavy games can get away with not being super interesting for the first two hours. NO game should ever be boring for two hours in the middle.

What? That's not remotely true. Plenty of games - especially big ones with stuff to grind toward and lots of optional content to do - can be boring for 2 hours in the middle. That's particularly true when you have no context, background, or direction to work with, as happens when you pick up somebody else's file.

Zareth posted...

MNTwins1991 posted...

It's one of the best open world games of all time

But it's still an open world game. With all the problems that open world games always have.

And at least to my objective eye, it's not even a great open world game. Sure it looks good and it has climate systems and whatnot but honestly there never was much incentive for me to explore. Even Bethesda games, as troublesome as they can be, have silly random and scripted NPC encounters, a variety of dungeons and caves and cities and whatnot to find, bizarre easter eggs, etc.

In BoTW it felt like I was just aimlessly wandering through barren landscapes looking for another of the same enemy I'd already fought a bunch of times or a little dungeon with the same general visual aesthetic and a puzzle involving an orb or something. I never reached the top of a hill and was in awe of something I saw on the other side, which I have done in most other 3D open world games at least once.
---

I've been through BotW multiple times, and even on master difficulty.

Honestly though, I pretty much agree with TC. This game has a world that is way too enormous for the amount of meaningful content it had to offer. Spoiler alert, not much.

The sidequests were completely and utterly pointless. I've heard arguments like "but some of them lead you to shrines tho!" which the sheikah sensor does on its own just fine. Any rewards you get are either rupees (usually only 100 of them), some mundane ingredient or weapon that will break in a few hits, or again, the location of a shrine.

The thing with sidequests in other Zelda games is that they were worth repeating on subsequent playthroughs. In BotW, once you realize how easy it is to get money (Talus farming) and you have been to all the shrines. There's literally no reason to do any of them, except for Tarrey town stuff. Which doesn't offer anything unique aside from a certain shop.
---

Im still amazed by the fact it had no dungeons. I mean everything else was great but thats the absolute best part of Zelda games.
---

DrCidd posted...

Honestly though, I pretty much agree with TC. This game has a world that is way too enormous for the amount of meaningful content it had to offer. Spoiler alert, not much.

One of the main problems with open world games these days. It seems to always be a contest to who can make the biggest world, not the most interesting one.
It's nice that The Outer Worlds and Cyberpunk 2077 are going to be smaller and more focused in scope.
---

I didn't care for it either. It was certainly well made, but I don't like open world games and this game suffers from the same pitfalls every open world game does. Travel is boring. Exploration feels mostly repetitive and grindy. You get basically every skill/ability you need up front meaning you feel very little sense of progression, etc.

It was fine. But not what I'm looking for in a Zelda game.
---

I put 80 hours into that game

it only felt like 40

please people stop spreading this garbage that BotW is a mediocre open world game it's easily the best one of all time.
---

Smarkil posted...

It was fine. But not what I'm looking for in a Zelda game.

I think that's my fundamental hangup. You see all these reviews calling it "The best Zelda game." Or at the very least, "The best Zelda game since (XYZ)." Except that it isn't. It doesn't meet the clearly established formula that is Zelda. It uses the assets and proper nouns from the franchise but it does not include a significant portion of the content that is associated with the brand. It'd be like if the next Call of Duty game did away with gunplay and focused more on paperwork and mission debriefings. Even if it were the best military office job simulator ever and it included characters from previous games, it's not really a Call of Duty game, because it does not include the elements that everyone expects from the series.

Or that's how I feel about it anyway. Obviously I'm in the minority.
---

RoboXgp89 posted...

please people stop spreading this garbage that BotW is a mediocre open world game it's easily the best one of all time.

I've played a lot of open world games and I think BoTW easily ranks as the most boring of them, so I take issue with your categorical declaration.
---

I've seen a lot of people say "It's actually the most Zelda of all the Zelda games because it's closest to NES LoZ", which is true, but I would argue NES LoZ isn't really what most associate the brand with.

Regardless, most Zelda games do shake up the formula to some extent, though most not as much as BotW (except Zelda 2).

What concerns me is that given the success of BotW, we're likely to see most Zelda games in the future take after it. Which is fine for those who like it, but I guess I'm not a fan of heading in that direction.
---

Zareth posted...

DrCidd posted...

Honestly though, I pretty much agree with TC. This game has a world that is way too enormous for the amount of meaningful content it had to offer. Spoiler alert, not much.

One of the main problems with open world games these days. It seems to always be a contest to who can make the biggest world, not the most interesting one.
It's nice that The Outer Worlds and Cyberpunk 2077 are going to be smaller and more focused in scope.

Surprisingly, RDR2 managed to have a huge and Interesting open world.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

Surprisingly, RDR2 managed to have a huge and Interesting open world.

Eh, it gets pretty repetitive. There are only so many encounters you can come across in the open world before they just start repeating. And the fact that you can only fast travel after a considerable time in the game, and with it only being one way, makes it even worse. I spent so much time just doing the stupid 'cinematic' riding just so I didn't have to drudge my way from point A to B (I'm looking at you hunting).
---

The lack of fast travel options is pretty disappointing, admittedly.
---

I'd like the next Zelda to be a happier medium. I loved this game, but I'd gladly exchange a bunch of shrines for more dungeons.

man101 posted...

NO game should ever be boring for two hours in the middle.

A couple things. First, its only boring if you dont do anything interesting. I was also discovering something, or learning something, or had a goal to reach something or find somewhere. So, I never really just got bored playing it. Second, I dont agree because Ive had great game where the beginning and end were fun. The middle was also fun, but had random parts in that were boring for a bit. So, eh...

man101 posted...

I never reached the top of a hill and was in awe of something I saw on the other side, which I have done in most other 3D open world games at least once.

That sounds more like a you problem. I remember when I first climbed those twins peaks. And it was amazing up there. Or even some of the other high places where you could see a lot of the map.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

Im still amazed by the fact it had no dungeons. I mean everything else was great but thats the absolute best part of Zelda games.

The Divine Beast were basically small dungeons. And the shrines were basically Dungeon Rooms...
---

Smarkil posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

Surprisingly, RDR2 managed to have a huge and Interesting open world.

Eh, it gets pretty repetitive. There are only so many encounters you can come across in the open world before they just start repeating. And the fact that you can only fast travel after a considerable time in the game, and with it only being one way, makes it even worse. I spent so much time just doing the stupid 'cinematic' riding just so I didn't have to drudge my way from point A to B (I'm looking at you hunting).

But has anyone seen a man called Gavin? Gav!
---

man101 posted...

baby's first open world game

That's not fair.

...It's also inside the Nintendo bubble.

I stumbled across a game once that looked like BotW, except better. I don't remember what it was called, because it was on a PlayStation. BotW is a fairly bare-bones open world game.
---

90% of open world games suck

nothing to do
bland repetitive dialogue
ugly character models
lakiluster music
fetch quest

zelda is the opposite of that
anyone who says BotW is mediocre shouldn't be taken seriously anywhere, it won like a million game awards
---

LinkPizza posted...

The Divine Beast were basically small dungeons. And the shrines were basically Dungeon Rooms...

That's the problem. Small dungeons, and a bunch of dungeon rooms spread out across the whole map.

I'm sure just about everyone would have been happier with fully realized dungeons in place of all that shrine nonsense. The "ancient tech" aesthetic got pretty boring after a while. And it was especially grating when the DLC dungeon looked the same.

Mild alterations to the color scheme don't count, either.
---

DrCidd posted...

LinkPizza posted...

The Divine Beast were basically small dungeons. And the shrines were basically Dungeon Rooms...

That's the problem. Small dungeons, and a bunch of dungeon rooms spread out across the whole map.

I'm sure just about everyone would have been happier with fully realized dungeons in place of all that shrine nonsense. The "ancient tech" aesthetic got pretty boring after a while. And it was especially grating when the DLC dungeon looked the same.

Mild alterations to the color scheme don't count, either.

It didnt matter to me if they were more condensed or spread out. I would have maybe liked a little more color or schemes. And it depends about the length. Most of the older players Ive heard from said that the smaller shrines were better. Because you could just pick up and play. And out down easier. Going into a dungeon, you usually dont want to stop part way through. And have to remember everything you did last time you played. You dont have that problem with shrines. Its breaks it up. Making it easier to pick and up and play. And easier to take breaks without forgetting where you are. Which makes it a good game to play when you have lots of time, or very little.
---