Why is the new Zelda special?



  • @Nillend I think Pokemon is his one true love, but who knows with that lovable weirdo. I just want another review that isn't Cooking Mama.



  • @SabotageTheTruth
    OMG I didn't know this treasure existed! This is amazing.
    Sadly Kyle said that there is no chance in him writting another review :(



  • I wouldn't be too hung up on these "social media analysis" because... here's Sony winning.

    alt text

    Then here's Microsoft winning... from the same data analysis as the one you posted showing Nintendo winning....

    alt text

    Then there's Youtube views with the highest view from each company God of War gameplay trailer having 9 million, Zelda with 7 million, Halo Wars 2 having 5 million.

    Does this mean anything? Not really. There are so many factors skewing the data, especially the fact that social media bots are a thing as evidence by the recent BF1 record breaking youtube view and upvote. There's also the fact that Nintendo fans really didn't have anything else to talk about but Zelda because that's the only game they can look forward to for Wii U.

    Now for the actual game, if it's not going to have a strong narrative, it's not going to hold any of my attention. Story in Zelda has been purposefully weak because of Nintendo's philosophy of toybox rather than having an interesting, character driven story. There are many, MANY other games that are just as fun, but they also have narrative. Just take Horizon for example, looks graphically better, story is a lot more interesting, has characters with depth, and shows a lot of the same open world features.



  • @Whoaness Mine data shows what games specifically were mentioned during that time. Your graphs actually mean something, if you can read them correctly. I won't debate over whether the tablets are good/correct or not, but they are certainly saying a lot of useful info.
    And sure bots are a thing, but if you are convinced that they have so big influence on so many videos/tweets in such dense time period with so many trends, then you might stop believing anything you are told on the internet. And even without the data, most gaming media, including EZA, has expressed that Zelda has been the game of E3 2016 on video.
    I agree with the fact that Nintendo didn't bring much else, but that still doesn't deny the obvious support the new Zelda has amassed.

    And I agree that story will either make or brake the game. What we so during E3 was a lot of gameplay but little story. However I think this Zelda is currently one of limited games that has into so many directions and it seems that it has done them well. And can you give some examples of these MANY games that are equally fun and also have narrative (which Zelda also has) that have actally come out.
    I don't completely agree with your comparison with Horizon.
    Horizon looks graphically better: Definitely, but graphics alone don't make a game great. It can be visually pleasing without demanding graphics. I too don't like bad graphics, even games that are meant to have pixel graphics, but that's a matter of a personal preference/style. I still acknowledge that Zelda certainly doesn't bring any new milestones for graphics, or really bring anything new in this area.
    Story is a lot more interesting: You don't know complete story for either Horizon or Zelda. None of these games are out yet.
    Has character with depth: So does Zelda, and many fans of the franchise (which I am not) would tear you apart if you said that to them.)
    Shows a lot of the same open world features: Correct.

    I'm not sure if you've actually read what I've written in my post. I clearly expressed my scepticism for the game and not understanding its hype, even outside its franchise. But I gave the game and the community a chance to convince me otherwise, because the game looks interesting and that massive approval it got from majority of people must be coming from somewhere.

    Clearly neither you nor I understand the overwhelming bustle that the game has created, but that's not a reason to step on it.



  • While yes many other games have done open world, I think there is something to be said for how Zelda is doing it. The focus on physics in the world and having lasting effects is incredibly interesting as far as making the world feel real, and yet they don't lose the game-y aspects that make Zelda, Zelda. It also combines a lot of things that you used to only get in one at a time. Sure Just Cause has the verticality and mobility, but it often lacks the smaller details and things on a less grandoise level. Zelda has those things in spades.

    Some other thoughts:
    -The world doesn't appear to be bloated like a lot of open world games are. The landscape isn't absolutely dotted with junk, the team understands that some emptiness is needed to make a world feel real, and they give you the mobility to transverse it so it doesn't get boring either.

    -There is a sandbox design to the world that is usually only seen in games that focus on such things. You have a Zelda game, with a storyline and dungeons and all of those things that are so important for Zelda. You also have a world that you can fool around in for hours like it was Minecraft.

    -The level of polish we saw in the demo is beyond most open world games months after launch. If we get the traditional Nintendo polish on an open world game I can hope that will inspire other devs to try harder instead of releasing broken worlds.

    -The difficulty definitely appears to be amped up compared to the last (quite a) few Zelda titles. Enemies on the field can one shot you, rupees don't grow on grass, etc.



  • The most frustrating thing about Zelda at this year's E3 is that it consumes all "casual" attention from everything else. A buddy of mine, who doesn't follow gaming news as intense as most of us, texted asking about E3. He says he is excited for Zelda. I say sure it looks good. I know he doesn't have a WiiU but does have a PS4, so I ask him about Death Stranding. And he reply's with: "?", then goes on to talk more about Zelda.

    Its just so disappointing to find people so absorbed by a game because of pedigree. It is a good spring board, and the game does indeed look good. But for people with a narrower window into the gaming news world, it blots out the sun. And this honestly harshens my own opinion on the game. As in "It better be 10/10 for distracting people from all the real announcements." (not that I think this... yet)



  • @Nillend nah, I've been around and played Zelda since Zelda 1, so I'm just expressing my jadedness. I read your skepticism, which aligns with my views, but I'm elaborating on more about what I'm concerned about.

    Zelda's "story" has always boiled down to the same dungeon diving to get tools for the next dungeon and save the princess and his personality is less interesting than a shoe.
    If a game has story, the trailer shows story. If the game's characters have personality, the trailer shows them having interesting dialogue that reveals their thoughts on subject matters.

    This Zelda might be an interesting offbeat iteration like Majora's Mask, but Nintendo deserves to be stepped on until they realize they need to change up what's important for games to mature.

    @Carmichael It's only extremely polished because it's been purposefully delayed until NX came out. Other devs don't have the luxury of spending years on polish.

    Whatever they showed at E3 is most definitely a game that was long since finished. No dev would allow anyone to demo the game like that if it was still being worked on.



  • @frasafrase That's why I'm so unhappy with this. The game just seems overhyped with no specific reason, other than the names it comes with.
    It doesn't present anything I would be really excited about. It seems like a good game but definitely not worth all the fuss about it.



  • @Whoaness You are making assumptions. We don't have enough of a view into the development of the game to be able to say whether it's complete or whether it was delayed only for the NX version. The later is of course a likely scenario, but even still, say Breath of the Wild gets 4 or 5 years of dev time. That's about the same amount of time Skyrim took to develop and we all saw the 'polish' there.



  • @Nillend I've been a Zelda fan for years - I still think Ocarina of Time is one of the best games I've ever played, however I kind of agree with you that BotW doesn't seem like anything too special.
    As shitty as it probably sounds I think Zelda gets a bit of a free pass because of Nostalgia and in some weird way it's almost "expected" that people are excited for it just based on it's name alone.

    For me personally I think it comes down to how disappointing Nintendo has been since the Wii days, the only game I can really think of that I really enjoyed a bunch from the Wii / Wii U would be Bayonetta 2, anything else just felt like the same old stuff I've played a million times before which isn't always a bad thing necessarily (I still like Pokemon) but when I'm being asked to sit down and maybe put in 40+ hours just to get the same old "you saved the princess" ending I feel like I could use that time better on something more interesting.

    I'm not saying it looks like a terrible game but I do feel like there are so many more interesting games on the horizon that Zelda barely pop's up on my radar. I might feel different as the game gets closer to release and see see a bit more but right now that's how I feel about it - hopefully I didn't ramble too much...



  • @Carmichael Skyrim came out 3 years after Fallout 3, and a large part of one of those years was spend on Fallout 3 DLC.
    They didn't have, at most, more than 3 years to get Skyrim out.

    Zelda Wii U had already leaked at its launch in 2012 with an official unveiling in 2013. 5 years is way too long, and we still don't have an exact date for this game.



  • @ZeusBurger Wow! Hearing that from you really seems like there is something about BotW that it's overhyped. I totally agree with what you said. Thx for your response.
    Let's hope the game will not dissapoint.



  • I think what makes Zelda unique is the dungeons. But what makes Zelda great for some is harder to pinpoint. It's not about being the best in class at any one given thing. Witcher 3 has magnificent storytelling for sidequests but there's aspects of that game that are poor by any standards but it still remains a brilliant game. We won't know how good this Zelda is until it releases but it's fair to say that many of the complaints about small over-worlds and similar mechanics are being addressed. That and the long wait probably accounts for the excitement.

    I wouldn't try and convince anyone to play Zelda. The dungeons are unique but you could compare them to citadels in Assasin's creed or complexes in older Resident Evil games. Solving puzzles and navigating dungeons makes you feel like a genius at times. But really it's all part of the adventure. Zelda is similar to some other games in aspects and maybe this new one even more so but it's still uniquely Zelda. Either you love the genre or not.



  • @Nillend said in Why is the new Zelda special?:

    @SabotageTheTruth
    I agree with what you said. I'm guessing that this will best Zelda, especially after the reaction it got from E3, and so the fans are behind it. I mean, the quests and story would have to mess up pretty hard for the game to fail just a little.
    But saying that, I am afraid that the EZA score for it will HIGHLY depend on who is assigned to review it. If Damiani reviews it, we can already mark it as 5 stars. But if Bloodworth or even Huber or Ben review it, I'm more confident in their impartiality.

    Is this comment really fair? With Damiani review I would more likely assume a 7.8! =)
    How about if Ben would review Persona 5? Or Huber the next Yakuza?



  • @Budi You want my serious answer? Damiani is know for his immense love for Zelda and will use any opportunity to talk about it. He seems to be especially stoked about BotW. And beside that, he gained certain reputation from his reviews, including but not limited to Star Fox Zero and the infamous Wind Waker. So any review he does is worth taking with a grain of salt.
    Similar situation with Ben because if (or when) he reviews Persona 5, we might just give it 5 * right now. However, I think his opinion is more impartial and trustworthy when it comes to Zelda. But when you give Valkyria Chronicles and Dark Souls 3 the same score, then something is off. Sure, the EZA scale to grade games is different than it was at GT, but the games are Imo on totally different levels regardless.
    Huber has impressed me the most with his reviews. I think he has the best writing style and really seems to switch to his critical, objective mode when he writes reviews. Which almost seems unbelievable, when you see all the positive energy he carries and shares around. I am not certain that he will give Yakuza 0 5 stars, and even if he would, I would believe his 5 stars the most, out of the three mentioned allies.

    I still respect every opinion and review that they make, as they are professionals and even if they judge it subjectively, the end product must still go through 'The gate of Bloodworth' who, I believe, deserves extreme credibility and respect.
    But even if I respect their opinion, that doesn't mean I agree with it. I am free to make my own opinions about the games and their reviews.

    Hope this answers your question. If you would like to continue this discussion, you are free to open new topic and I will more than gladly join the conversation.



  • @Nillend said in Why is the new Zelda special?:

    @Budi You want my serious answer? Damiani is know for his immense love for Zelda and will use any opportunity to talk about it. He seems to be especially stoked about BotW. And beside that, he gained certain reputation from his reviews, including but not limited to Star Fox Zero and the infamous Wind Waker. So any review he does is worth taking with a grain of salt.
    Similar situation with Ben because if (or when) he reviews Persona 5, we might just give it 5 * right now. However, I think his opinion is more impartial and trustworthy when it comes to Zelda. But when you give Valkyria Chronicles and Dark Souls 3 the same score, then something is off. Sure, the EZA scale to grade games is different than it was at GT, but the games are Imo on totally different levels regardless.
    Hope this answers your question. If you would like to continue this discussion, you are free to open new topic and I will more than gladly join the conversation.

    Well, I wont start a new topic for this since my beef is just with what you have said.

    You are making it sound that reviews that you dont agree with are flawed reviews. Dark Souls 3 and Valkyria Chronicles have 2-4 points difference in metacritic depending on the versions. So the average consensus is that they are both really good games. I haven't played DS3 so I can't comment how I feel about it. But have you played Valkyria Chronicles? It's a great game. I understand you must love DS3, but really there are games just as good and even better out there. In the end, it's just about personal preference which you like more. Don't treat game scores as absolute facts, the important part is in the actual review text. I'm sure you agree with that, but still you are really bothered by the score for some reason.

    And what is Damiani's "certain reputation"? He gives lower than average score to Wind Waker and you say he loves Zelda so he will rate BotW higher? That's a contradiction.

    And do you think Huber's love for Remedy didn't show in his Quantum Break review? It also got the same score as Dark Souls 3, while on average it's considered to be a worse game than Valkyria Chronicles you made the comparison with.

    Edit: After reading what you wrote again and what I wrote, I'm sorry if I came out somewhat agressive.
    You just gave me an impression that you weren't talking about how your personal taste matches with a reviewer. But that some of them are bad at their job and their reviews shouldn't be trusted by anyone. This is because you didn't specify that Damiani has a certain reputation in YOUR eyes and YOU take his reviews with grain of salt. It first felt just like overall statement. Ofcourse I don't expect you to agree with their every review. It just felt to me that you were keeping your opinion as something everyone should share. My apologies.



  • @Budi Everything I say is of course my personal opinion and I'm sorry if you understood it differently.

    By no means are reviews that I don't agree with flawed. it's just the difference in opinion. I did not played Valkyria Chronicles, because the voice acting is a big thing for me and in this game it simply annoyed me, both japanese and english. I don't want to play a game where annoying voices constantly pouring into my ears.
    Dark Souls 3 is not my favorite game, but it is the best (In my opinion) game that I've played. If I would to make a list for my favorite games and the best games I've played, there would be different games on those lists.
    And you express the importance of review text (with which I agree with), but only after you compare solely the scores on Metacritic between Valkyria Chronicles and DS3. People like those two games for COMPLETELY different reasons and the reviews should show that.
    I merely disagree with the score of VC. Because when I saw, I immediately thought "Wait. this game got the same score like the other one. That doesn't make any sense (to me)"
    The Wind Waker argument is meant directly to his reputation. I mean, GT made emote 7.8 and made fun of it for a long time. Alongside with the Star Fox Zero score, his reputation is directed toward his (again IN MY PERSONAL OPINION) controversial review scores, with which I find myself to regularly disagree with. But because of both his reputation and love for Zelda, it gives him less credibility in my eyes, to write a quality review.
    Of course Huber's love for Remedy is shown during his review, but in MUCH lesser extent than Damiani's love for Nintendo and Zelda, which he likes to express as much as possible.
    Also, expectations and the playerbase that Quantum Break and Valkyria Chronicles are meant for are totally different and expectations are equally diverse. In the same way there are completely different reasons why I didn't play those games, while I saw a lot of gameplay and read a number of reviews. Quantum Break seems like a good game with bad controls and technical difficulties that doomed it, while Valkyria Chronicles is a more fun game with great tone, but with cheesy story and childish characters with bad voiceacting.
    Ultimately, Quantum Break has better graphics, better voiceacting, better story, better characters and more intense combat, while VC only surpasses it in tone and controls.
    But please keep in mind, that this is my view on it and I didn't play those two games.



  • Now can we PLEASE keep this section for the new Zelda discussion!



  • After this much derailing by me I feel that I should adress the actual topic also.

    Personally when I saw the BotW trailer from E3 I wasn't impressed at all. I thought the trailer was mediocre at best. But after reading what people had gathered from the Treehouse streams, I was convinced that this could be quite a special game! I'm not the biggest Zelda fan, I have played the first four games and prefer Link to the Past most (Sorry Kyle). After that I've played Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass and Link Between the Worlds. I very much liked all of them but didn't complete them.

    Why I got really hyped about BotW is that while many things Zelda does for the first time now that have been done by other games earlier. There will be a Nintendo spin to it. From the three first party developers, Nintendo is really best known for their innovation and polish. Just look at what they recently did with Splatoon. Zelda being such open and big world is interesting and just the ability to climb anywhere and chop down any tree makes it special. It's not like in Tomb Raider where you can only climb certain very limited marked spots. Also the combat has always just been there in the earlier Zelda games I have played, it was never a highlight. But now the impressions on it are really positive by people who have played it.

    And while there are plenty of new things coming to the franchise. It's safe to assume that what I loved in earlier Zeldas like the Dungeon/Puzzle design and great variety of different gameplay effecting items are still there. Even with this younger developement team that will make Zelda feel fresh again.



  • To answer the question originally posed by Nillend:

    @Nillend said in Why is the new Zelda special?:

    As I am a person that is not into the franchise, try to convince me why I should play this game?

    If you are not into this franchise already, this game will not be so revolutionizing to you as it will be to people who are already invested in the Zelda series for so long. We (as I consider myself to be one of those people) are finally getting the huge gameplay changes we wanted in a Zelda game, that's what makes it special. If you don't have that connection right now, I don't think this game will be special to you, hence you don't "need" to play it.