Current Events > Do some people seriously think Breath of the Wild is a generic open world game?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm guessing these people didn't actually play the game? It doesn't have a typical open world structure at all. Most open world games have a linear main story and a bunch of littered side quests.

Zelda tells you where the final boss is and it eventually tells you where the divine beasts are. That's the main quest. You don't even have to do it to beat the game. Which other open world games are like this? The game never locks something away because you haven't progressed in the story far enough.

That doesn't go into layered gameplay systems. Everything in the game has a logic. Wood can be burned and spread fire. Fire creates wind. Metal can conduct electricity and be controlled with magnesis. Lighting shocks everything in water. All of these things can be linked. It will probably happen when you don't even intend it to.

The game never stops you to say "You're not meant to do this" it just lets you. If you can think of it you can do it. I praise any game that follows a logic like this and succeeds. Fallout 1/2 and Deus Ex are older examples of this and some stuff in those still blow me away. But it felt like a lot of games don't really want to risk that stuff anymore. They want a well crafted story. They don't want players to accidentally skip a large part of the main quest because they found a character too early. BOTW avoids this stuff and does something new.

I hope it does influence more games. I want less linear objectives in open worlds. Less scripted moments and more organic ones. I think this is why stuff like Minecraft got so popular too. A player creating their own epic moments will always stick out more.
---

"Fire creates wind."

...what?
---

jumi posted...

"Fire creates wind."

...what?

It creates an updraft you can use to launch yourself with a paraglider.
---

geeks on websites like this reflexively rebel against games that receive that level of universal praise

i think that for the most part it's an effort to try to set themselves apart from the rabble; to suggest that they have some deeper understanding or critical capacity than everyone else

yes, it is deeply embarrassing to witness

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

soulunison2 posted...

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

Which open world game is it most similar to?
---

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

Which open world game is it most similar to?

Farcry

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

Which open world game is it most similar to?

Farcry

Far Cry 2 had some similar elements but that's about it.
---

soulunison2 posted...

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

---

yes

its got less depth than games made in 2008 (assassins creed)
---

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

Which open world game is it most similar to?

Farcry

Far Cry 2 had some similar elements but that's about it.

Id one up you and say Just Cause 2/3 did this concept much better than Zelda

The hookshot in just Cause is amazing

Shrines are just another glorified collectathon, id rather more dungeons than 100 + shrines

metralo posted...

yes

its got less depth than games made in 2008 (assassins creed)

Err what? Assassin's Creed 1 was a game that had the same side missions over and over again.

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

Which open world game is it most similar to?

Farcry

Far Cry 2 had some similar elements but that's about it.

Id one up you and say Just Cause 2/3 did this concept much better than Zelda

The hookshot in just Cause is amazing

Shrines are just another glorified collectathon, id rather more dungeons than 100 + shrines

I never connected with Just Cause 2. It gave a lot of mobility but overall the shooting and driving mechanics never really felt good. The mission design was pretty meh from what I played too.
---

Darmik posted...

metralo posted...

yes

its got less depth than games made in 2008 (assassins creed)

Err what? Assassin's Creed 1 was a game that had the same side missions over and over again.

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

Which open world game is it most similar to?

Farcry

Far Cry 2 had some similar elements but that's about it.

Id one up you and say Just Cause 2/3 did this concept much better than Zelda

The hookshot in just Cause is amazing

Shrines are just another glorified collectathon, id rather more dungeons than 100 + shrines

I never connected with Just Cause 2. It gave a lot of mobility but overall the shooting and driving mechanics never really felt good. The mission design was pretty meh from what I played too.

But thats like your opinion.

The grappling hook in JC 2 led to one of the craziest mods ever a while back

It's pretty much sweeping game of the year. There's no point in arguing. It's easily a great game. How great is all subjective. Saying it's a "bad game" is being disingenuous, personal tastes aside.
---

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

Which open world game is it most similar to?

Farcry

Far Cry 2 had some similar elements but that's about it.

Id one up you and say Just Cause 2/3 did this concept much better than Zelda

The hookshot in just Cause is amazing

idk bout 3, but just cause 2 is the one of be most hollow games Ive ever played. The hooks are fun, but once you get bored of stirring up dumb shit, the game is worthless. Its just an ok double-down on the mayhem aspects of gta.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

It's pretty much sweeping game of the year. There's no point in arguing. It's easily a great game. How great is all subjective. Saying it's a "bad game" is being disingenuous, personal tastes aside.

I can agree with this. Its a great game and I wish it was more fleshed out and the way the DLC is presented feels like we definitely got a barebone Incomplete version as there is no post game

CookieMarvin posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Darmik posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Its literally a generic open world game

Source - I beat it

Which open world game is it most similar to?

Farcry

Far Cry 2 had some similar elements but that's about it.

Id one up you and say Just Cause 2/3 did this concept much better than Zelda

The hookshot in just Cause is amazing

idk bout 3, but just cause 2 is the one of be most hollow games Ive ever played. The hooks are fun, but once you get bored of stirring up dumb shit, the game is worthless. Its just an double-down on the mayhem aspects of gta.

Like I said, JC2s hook led to some crazy moments man

CookieMarvin posted...

idk bout 3, but just cause 2 is the one of be most hollow games Ive ever played. The hooks are fun, but once you get bored of stirring up dumb s***, the game is worthless. Its just an double-down on the mayhem aspects of gta.

This is how it felt for me. It's not really the same thing Zelda was going for.
---

Darmik posted...

CookieMarvin posted...

idk bout 3, but just cause 2 is the one of be most hollow games Ive ever played. The hooks are fun, but once you get bored of stirring up dumb s***, the game is worthless. Its just an double-down on the mayhem aspects of gta.

This is how it felt for me. It's not really the same thing Zelda was going for.

Hookshot was fun, whole map is open from the beginning - you could do anything man.

Same thing with Skyrim, discover everything, etc

Its another generic open world game man

Doesnt mean its a bad game

the hooks were a lot of fun, but can you really say that its a better open world than botw? I found it to be drab, even at its best. There was something always grabbing my interest in zelda. In jc i always felt like I was just looking for a new, bigger thing to blow up. I guess thats not inherently bad, but personally, its not what Im looking for.
---

CookieMarvin posted...

the hooks were a lot of fun, but can you really say that its a better open world than botw? I found it to be drab, even at its best. There was something always grabbing my interest in zelda. In jc i always felt like I was just looking for a new, bigger thing to blow up. I guess thats not inherently bad, but personally, its not what Im looking for.

Those two are literally the same motivation.

Looking for bigger things to blow up is another way of saying of looking for something new to find.

I got the exact same vibe I get from Skyrim when I played BotW - the luster and sheen is there but when you realize the only thing youre finding are boring shrines and maybe a stable or two then its just filler and I realize Skyrim is a better open world game than botw

Skyrim had factions and other stuff to pull you apart. I would have loved shrines if it was a mini dungeon instead of a puzzle

Just Cause has an open world. But the focus is shooting guys, jumping around and using your grapple hook. There's nothing to really discover. The game isn't designed for you to just run through the forest and find things. It still had a normal mission structure.

Skyrim is very much a traditional Bethesda RPG with quest lines and character builds that are designed for you to play to your strengths. Again it isn't going for the same thing. You can discover dungeons and caves on your own but the game will lock out areas if you aren't up to that quest yet.

To me it would be silly calling Just Cause and Skyrim similar or generic because they're open world games. They're going vastly different things. It's the same with BOTW. Neither of these games have a similar structure to it.
---

I still need to beat BotW. I've been slowly trying to finish the master sword quest and failing each time.

It's not really a generic open world game, because they don't really hold you hand when it comes to doing anything. Like most of the stuff you just have to figure out on your own.
---

Darmik posted...

Just Cause has an open world. But the focus is shooting guys, jumping around and using your grapple hook. There's nothing to really discover. The game isn't designed for you to just run through the forest and find things. It still had a normal mission structure.

Skyrim is very much a traditional Bethesda RPG with quest lines and character builds that are designed for you to play to your strengths. Again it isn't going for the same thing. You can discover dungeons and caves on your own but the game will lock out areas if you aren't up to that quest yet.

To me it would be silly calling Just Cause and Skyrim similar or generic because they're open world games. They're going vastly different things. It's the same with BOTW. Neither of these games have a similar structure to it.

The idea is that theyre considered open world games with different tools that capture and immerse gamers.

Pacing is what youre thinking about and i would argue that locking a player out of a game is a good thing.

I went into Gannon with level 4 armor and two pieced him and tanked him because I was way too overprepared and the game never told me to slow down. And at the end I didnt feel rewarded because at no time did the game ever consider the consequences of allowing a player to go crazy. I was like this is it? There was nothing left to do and I wanted more and I was let down by the ending

Skyrim I feel is a bigger game (which is a sin because the switch is a handheld) with big lore like Zelda (thats almost another gripe. I would have loved some more lore) and when You explore it slows you down by locking quests to make sure you go elsewhere and it has other things to occupy you that Zelda should have tried to do.

At the end of it all though its about getting to the intro from the ending. And I feel BotW didnt do anything to distinguish itself from other games from the genre and its just applauded as other games because its Zelda

wolverinev2 posted...

I still need to beat BotW. I've been slowly trying to finish the master sword quest and failing each time.

It's not really a generic open world game, because they don't really hold you hand when it comes to doing anything. Like most of the stuff you just have to figure out on your own.

Hand holding is not a symptom of open world game (Zelda also has had a huge history of hand holding( its more due to games like Dark Souls that made it ok for the game to be hard.

soulunison2 posted...

CookieMarvin posted...

the hooks were a lot of fun, but can you really say that its a better open world than botw? I found it to be drab, even at its best. There was something always grabbing my interest in zelda. In jc i always felt like I was just looking for a new, bigger thing to blow up. I guess thats not inherently bad, but personally, its not what Im looking for.

Those two are literally the same motivation.

Looking for bigger things to blow up is another way of saying of looking for something new to find.

I got the exact same vibe I get from Skyrim when I played BotW - the luster and sheen is there but when you realize the only thing youre finding are boring shrines and maybe a stable or two then its just filler and I realize Skyrim is a better open world game than botw

Skyrim had factions and other stuff to pull you apart. I would have loved shrines if it was a mini dungeon instead of a puzzle

yeah, if you reduce them down to nothing, theyre the same thing. the payoff is so different, though. botw was such a cool celebration of nature. jc was boom. Hyrule was inhabited with tons of unique, interesting, and extremely cute characters. I cant name a single character from my time with just cause.

Skyrim is good, but its kind of an ugly mess. I havent played the newer versions that play up the colors, but as it was originally presented, there were like, eight colors in the game, and they were all gray as hell.

I think we just value different things in our games idk
---

BotW is the kinda game that really needed the structure from the old games. After a while, you're just going from shrine to shrine accomplishing simple puzzles for rewards that you can easily attain via common cooking ingredients or clearing another camp only to be rewarded with a weapon you don't care about or some umpteenth gem you don't need. The divine beasts are a fine little goal but they're no more engaging than any other shrine because by virtue of the design of the game, they had to be doable at any point.
---

UrCa1988 posted...

BotW is the kinda game that really needed the structure from the old games. After a while, you're just going from shrine to shrine accomplishing simple puzzles for rewards that you can easily attain via common cooking ingredients or clearing another camp only to be rewarded with a weapon you don't care about or some umpteenth gem you don't need. The divine beasts are a fine little goal but they're no more engaging than any other shrine because by virtue of the design of the game, they had to be doable at any point.

This perfectly puts into words what I feel about the game

CookieMarvin posted...

soulunison2 posted...

CookieMarvin posted...

the hooks were a lot of fun, but can you really say that its a better open world than botw? I found it to be drab, even at its best. There was something always grabbing my interest in zelda. In jc i always felt like I was just looking for a new, bigger thing to blow up. I guess thats not inherently bad, but personally, its not what Im looking for.

Those two are literally the same motivation.

Looking for bigger things to blow up is another way of saying of looking for something new to find.

I got the exact same vibe I get from Skyrim when I played BotW - the luster and sheen is there but when you realize the only thing youre finding are boring shrines and maybe a stable or two then its just filler and I realize Skyrim is a better open world game than botw

Skyrim had factions and other stuff to pull you apart. I would have loved shrines if it was a mini dungeon instead of a puzzle

yeah, if you reduce them down to nothing, theyre the same thing. the payoff is so different, though. botw was such a cool celebration of nature. jc was boom. Hyrule was inhabited with tons of unique, interesting, and extremely cute characters. I cant name a single character from my time with just cause.

Skyrim is good, but its kind of an ugly mess. I havent played the newer versions that play up the colors, but as it was originally presented, there were like, eight colors in the game, and they were all gray as hell.

I think we just value different things in our games idk

I got the updated version for free from steam cuz I owned Skyrim - maybe you have it there?

Zelda is Zelda, I forced myself to play TP and dont want to play skyward sword - I loved Link between worlds and I liked BotW - Zelda will always be praised because its zelda and I think thats pretty much it

wolverinev2 posted...

It's not really a generic open world game, because they don't really hold you hand when it comes to doing anything. Like most of the stuff you just have to figure out on your own.

A good example of this is near the beginning. The shrine on top of the mountain. You could;
- Do the quests for the old man to get a warm tunic (which is probably how most games would handle this if it had weather conditions. They usually don't).
- Simply eat the hot peppers near the entrance and chance your luck
- Light a torch. You can also set up campfires to rest on the way
- Find a flame enchanted weapon. No idea if they're there at the beginning

On top of that how you traverse that mountain is up to you. You could go up the traditional way with the enemies. Or just climb up the other side. It's up to you.

soulunison2 posted...

I went into Gannon with level 4 armor and two pieced him and tanked him because I was way too overprepared and the game never told me to slow down. And at the end I didnt feel rewarded because at no time did the game ever consider the consequences of allowing a player to go crazy. I was like this is it? There was nothing left to do and I wanted more and I was let down by the being.

Why should the game tell you to slow down? It's up to you. The game tells you at the start you can face Ganon. You spend most of the game building up your strength. Logically the more you do this the easier it will be.

soulunison2 posted...

Skyrim I feel is a bigger game (which is a sin because the switch is a handheld) with big lore like Zelda (thats almost another gripe. I would have loved some more lore) and when You explore it slows you down by locking quests to make sure you go elsewhere and it has other things to occupy you that Zelda should have tried to do.

That goes entirely against the design of BOTW. Outside of a couple of towns you never need to return to a single area. That's the beauty of the game. If you find something cool on your travels you can find out what it is when you get there. That's it. There's no key you need to wait for. It made it feel like I was actually exploring the world and looking for points of interest instead of just following waypoints.

soulunison2 posted...

At the end of it all though its about getting to the intro from the ending. And I feel BotW didnt do anything to distinguish itself from other games from the genre and its just applauded as other games because its Zelda

I'm hoping my topic here explains the key things it does differently. It truly is an open world game in every sense of the word.
---

soulunison2 posted...

CookieMarvin posted...

soulunison2 posted...

CookieMarvin posted...

the hooks were a lot of fun, but can you really say that its a better open world than botw? I found it to be drab, even at its best. There was something always grabbing my interest in zelda. In jc i always felt like I was just looking for a new, bigger thing to blow up. I guess thats not inherently bad, but personally, its not what Im looking for.

Those two are literally the same motivation.

Looking for bigger things to blow up is another way of saying of looking for something new to find.

I got the exact same vibe I get from Skyrim when I played BotW - the luster and sheen is there but when you realize the only thing youre finding are boring shrines and maybe a stable or two then its just filler and I realize Skyrim is a better open world game than botw

Skyrim had factions and other stuff to pull you apart. I would have loved shrines if it was a mini dungeon instead of a puzzle

yeah, if you reduce them down to nothing, theyre the same thing. the payoff is so different, though. botw was such a cool celebration of nature. jc was boom. Hyrule was inhabited with tons of unique, interesting, and extremely cute characters. I cant name a single character from my time with just cause.

Skyrim is good, but its kind of an ugly mess. I havent played the newer versions that play up the colors, but as it was originally presented, there were like, eight colors in the game, and they were all gray as hell.

I think we just value different things in our games idk

I got the updated version for free from steam cuz I owned Skyrim - maybe you have it there?

Zelda is Zelda, I forced myself to play TP and dont want to play skyward sword - I loved Link between worlds and I liked BotW - Zelda will always be praised because its zelda and I think thats pretty much it

Unfortunately, I played Skyrim on 360

I love TP, but Im with you on skyward sword. I think at the end of the day, I was just in botw to explore, to no end, and thats what I got. There have been plenty of times in which Ive fired up my switch, rode my horse around for hours, and just took pictures of stuff. Not looking to do things, just hanging out and enjoying the world. But I can see how that might bore some.
---

- Skyrim and fallout games have multiple pats to complete a goal as well - you want to assinate someone, do you do it in broad daylight or do you poison them? Assassins creed did this exact same thing. Zelda isnt the first game to give the player options. Its been a thing since god knows when.

- its video game theory that you need to slow the player down because then the payoff for the big baddy becomes this is it? When I defeated alduin I was completely OP and I still felt accomplished. I do like what they did with the blights if you dont liberate the beasts - but ffs New Vegas allows you to persuade the last baddie into forfeiting the final battle. Pacing is incredibly important especially with a game like botw that has nothing else going on after the shrines.

- youre always backtracking in botw, you miss a shrine? Better go back to that mountain range you gave up on because of the extremely vague detection skill. Thank god shrines are fast travel points because Id hate the game even more if I had to scale that mountain again

- it did things differently yes, but in my opinion, it failed to differentiate itself and set itself apart from open world games. Dark Souls 1/3 (lol fuck 2) is still my favorite in this regards with how simple the mechanics are and how it just plops you down and forces you to figure things out

A key difference between Skyrim and BOTW would be the dragons for example.

In Skyrim the important dragon encounters are scripted. After a certain point the game spawns generic ones to fight.

In Zelda you find the dragons in the world. They're not tied to a quest. They don't spawn when you do a certain thing. They're a part of the world regardless. You can find hints and clues from NPC's and that's it. It doesn't influence them appearing. When I found one it was a major moment and I had no idea what was going on.

This doesn't mean that what Skyrim does is worse. If your game has a focus on the plot it's gonna be scripted. But having stuff like this in BOTW was such a refreshing change. I'm looking forward to seeing this formula refined in new games. There's a lot they can still do to improve it.
---

Darmik posted...

A key difference between Skyrim and BOTW would be the dragons for example.

In Skyrim the important dragon encounters are scripted. After a certain point the game spawns generic ones to fight.

In Zelda you find the dragons in the world. They're not tied to a quest. They don't spawn when you do a certain thing. They're a part of the world regardless. You can find hints and clues from NPC's and that's it. It doesn't influence them appearing. When I found one it was a major moment and I had no idea what was going on.

This doesn't mean that what Skyrim does is worse. If your game has a focus on the plot it's gonna be scripted. But having stuff like this in BOTW was such a refreshing change. I'm looking forward to seeing this formula refined in new games. There's a lot they can still do to improve it.

Dragons are literal shooting stars in botw Ill be honest with you, theyre awesome but then you realize what theyre for and theyre just eh - and generic dragons are in concept the same thing as Hinox and Talus creatures in that they both lose their oomph after you realize how vulnerable they are.

I do agree botw had an interesting Concept and if you havent played dark souls you definitely should.

M_Live posted...

Nintendo fucking won this year with BotW and Mario. Zelda is like, one of the best open world games, period.

Its a good open world game, I wouldnt say one of the best.

soulunison2 posted...

- Skyrim and fallout games have multiple pats to complete a goal as well - you want to assinate someone, do you do it in broad daylight or do you poison them? Assassins creed did this exact same thing. Zelda isnt the first game to give the player options. Its been a thing since god knows when.

That's focused on killing a specific enemy. It's not even what I'm really talking about.

Skyrim does allow a lot of experimenting. Specifically when it comes to spells, enchanting, builds etc. That's great. But overall the plot and quest lines are linear. You can't bypass what the game doesn't want you to. Which is fine but BOTW's structure is completely open. You don't have to do a single thing in order.

Assassin's Creed is very deliberate. Everything is placed for the player. You run off a roof and a haystack is conveniently there. If you break the rules the animus will kick you out. I haven't played origins though.

soulunison2 posted...

- youre always backtracking in botw, you miss a shrine? Better go back to that mountain range you gave up on because of the extremely vague detection skill. Thank god shrines are fast travel points because Id hate the game even more if I had to scale that mountain again

I didn't care about finding every shrine. I tackled the game by region. I rarely had to bounce across the entire world. Generally all of the hints for shrines were nearby. If I found the painter I knew that meant a memory was nearby. If I found the musician bird that meant a shrine ritual was nearby. I spent a while in a region and moved on generally.
---

M_Live posted...

Nintendo fucking won this year with BotW and Mario. Zelda is like, one of the best open world games, period.

no it isn't lol
---

the problem is the main quest (and all the sidequests) are fucking terrible
---

praise for this game is what happens when nintendrones finally see an open-world game

I really like how the world is designed in general. I haven't played the game in months but I could still tell you how to get from the plateau to Kakariko without a map. It has a great sense of place. Only the GTA games have given me a similar natural knowledge of an open world.
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

praise for this game is what happens when nintendrones finally see an open-world game

I've played a shitload of open world games. As have many critics and developers who praised the game and gave it GOTY awards.
---

Delirious_Beard posted...

the problem is the main quest (and all the sidequests) are fucking terrible

main quest is certainly too loose. you get one set of directions from impa, then nothing until endgame. Its not supposed to be a story-driven game, but they could have done more.

Having that been said, it was the first entry in a series overhaul. I think theyll improve that, going forward.

AlternativeFAQS posted...

praise for this game is what happens when nintendrones finally see an open-world game

this is a completely useless post, and does nothing but paint you as a bitter loser.
---

yeah i just skimmed over a 2 hour gameplay video. it looks like a bunch of cartoony grass and trees.

amazing

AlternativeFAQS posted...

yeah i just skimmed over a 2 hour gameplay video. it looks like a bunch of cartoony grass and trees.

amazing

I guess all open world games can't be as good as Crackdown 3 and Sea of Thieves aye
---

hmm well i havent play those and tbh crackdown looks like shit. but anyone who thinks this shit is on the same level (or anywhere even close) to games like TW3 or AC Origins is high as fuck

Wow an Xbox fanatic shitting on a game he can't play? Truly shocking. Why don't you hit me with a Horizon Zero Dawn hot take next.
---

oh, honey
---

i can play both those games whenever I want.sorry i dont blindly love all the shit nintendo puts out

oh, honey
---