Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

I love the art style. They should seriously push that.

Yeah, the art style is beautiful and it seems to match the game perfectly.

Well, aesthetic quality isn't objective, so taking an average of it is largely meaningless. It only serves as a vague indicator of popular opinion, not anything anyone should pay any critical heed to.

Also, I think you should conflate innovation with quality to a degree. Experiencing something for the first time is a unique experience. Doing it years later in another game is less powerful.

Nope, that's double-A crAAzy! I don't play Twilight Princess and say, "Man, I really love this game, but it wasn't the first 3D game so I guess I have to dock it a point." That seems like an unfortunate knot to tie oneself in.

My favorite games tend to all offer something unique. It doesn't matter if they have the first Z-targeting or good third person shooting, etc, only that they have an identity and a quality one at that.

I agree with iKhan on that innovation point. I kinda feel like I shouldn't and that it's a bad thing in some ways. But looking back at all of the games that I liked the most, quite a lot of them were because they were doing something new (obviously still had to do it well though)

I love how most gamers are obsessed with gameplay mechanics, while I prefer a good and immersive atmosphere above all else. For me, atmosphere>>>story>>>gameplay. So what if a game has generic gameplay mechanics? It's better than what most games do now days shoving useless gimmicks on you. I'd rather have something that works well and makes practical sense to use than something that makes a game tedious and becomes too large of a focus. If the story isn't good, then you can't really immerse yourself in the world now can you?

OoT doesn't hold up well. It's story is lackluster. There aren't enough people to talk to. Most of the side missions are fetch-quests. While it may play well, the original had a bad Water Temple bug. The temples don't have much of a backstory. There aren't really any places to find lore or legends within the game to give depth to the world.

Yeah, that's what I'm most hoping and worried for in Zelda U; a great story. The gameplay will still be great and the open world will... be what it will be, but a great Zelda story is something we haven't seen in a long time.

I mean, Skyward Sword was fine, but it didn't even put much effort into its anime high school and shonen romance-heavy plots.

But for anything else you have to go back all the way to the mid 2000s; too long, it's been too long...

Tbh I think most games are ruined by cramming a story down your throat, a game could do with a great premise, a setting, some personality and bit of narrative to drive the game forward but I'd put most of those down to "atmosphere". There's a lot better meduims for stories than games and if game needs the story to be it's main selling point then it's probably not worthing playing.

Kind of reminds me of games like Shadow of the Colossus. I love that game.

@arronishere: See, this whole thought process seems simple minded. Games are an excellent media to tell a good story. I understand there is a big divide between gamers (usually consisting of modern gamers and ones that had their beginnings in the 80's and 90's), but without a good story you just get boring mechanics. While game mechanics can be fun, games that focus only on the mechanics tend to be time waster games more than anything. Atmosphere and world building are important to drawing the player into the world around them, and story is what gives you a purpose to continue playing and exploring.

We have books that focus on their mechanics rather than story. We call those English textbooks.

That's an equally simplistic view. Both types of games can work. A final fantasy game suffers without a good story. Mario Galaxy would be worse with more of a story. And then you've got the middle ground of games like Dark Souls which are great because they make the story largely optional so you can play it either way.

In my opinion I don't think Zelda games have really ever had great stories. Although they do have their own key differences, they all appear to be fairly similar to one another (except Majora's Mask) and feature a simple plot.

I'd argue that the average opinion IS the overall quality. Individuals may agree or disagree, but if you are trying to make a general statement about quality of one game vs another, then the best way is some sort of average. That's ultimately what I was trying to get at when I said OoT will never be touched due to a change in the people working on it.

Game's aren't objective, so giving critical heed to a single individuals evaluation of quality isn't generalizable at all.

I wouldn't dock it a point, but unlike OoT, I wouldn't give it a point. Experiencing a 3D game for the first time can be absolutely mindblowing. I didn't play OoT when it came out, but I did play Mario 64, and that was the exact experience I had. When I played Sunshine and Galaxy though, it was more of a given. In those games, the exciting new things like FLUDD and Gravity mechanics were what I found impressive.

Oh, of course you would say this.

Come one, come all; feast your ears on the anti-intellectual 'think' pieces; "Do games really NEED stories?" "Would X popular game have been better without X plot!?" "Movies did it furst: X popular game is not as good as people think it is because I have a need for validation, by P. Kollar."

Math would suggest to me that there is literally no difference there. You're still enjoying something less because something vaguely similar was released in the distant past; which is a bonkers mind game to play.

But really, -haughty look-, I enjoyed stories before they were cool. The Odyssey? Pah, new-age trash! I remember back before stories were codified. #griotsdiditfirst

His opinion,do you know what opinion mean? You don't have to like it,but you do have to respect it,if you want your opinions to be respected as well,

Yes, I do enjoy things less when they aren't new. With games, sports, food, etc. I live near a great Mediterranean restaurant, and I like the food, but nothing will ever compare to the first time I ever ate there.

Nope games don't really NEED stories as they are a form of structured playing, what you're trying to talk about is interactive art media things which most AAA give lip service to being or having an story in addition of the game. Of course there are games that make very good use of the medium to tell story in way only they can like JRPGs when multiple playthroughs offer different takes and viewpoints of the story and characters.

In the context of Zelda they already have a story so you must mean a more developed AAA style of story in which case no as the Zelda games are often the Game Of The Year without them already.

Most popular games* don't actually have stories attached to them so in the general sense yes they would.

*here's the top ten selling games of all time, the majority of which have no story or a very basic story;
Tetris (EA)
Wii Sports
Minecraft
Grand Theft Auto V
Super Mario Bros.
Mario Kart Wii
Tetris (GBC)
Wii Sports Resort
New Super Mario Bros.
Pac-Man

That's not a question...I sense trickery afoot.

Hope that helps.

No, games don't NEED a story, but that doesn't change anything. Zelda actually does feature a story and the story it features tends to be cliché and repititive. It can be criticized because of that; it doesn't mean the game is any worse because of it being criticized. Game's are criticized in order to highlight flaws or areas that the game can improve on; Zelda's story just happens to be one of those areas. So yes, games don't NEED a story, but that doesn't exempt a game like Zelda, which features a plot and tends to be driven by it, from having it's story criticized.

But are you really living them? Is life still living when you measure all of your experiences as less than the past, or are you just remembering, as if in a dream?

Man, you guys took those fake, rhetorical op ed pieces very literally. FYI, 'do games really need stories?' is not something that is asked literally, but rather to complain about X plot in Y game that Z op ed writer did not enjoy.

Anyway, you seem to be confused here; saying 'Zelda stories tend to be cliche' is not criticism, it's stereotyping. Moreover, it is lacking any sort of relevant lens or specific analysis. Just like metacritic, measuring things as a whole is pointless, especially in a series as proliferated and diverse as Zelda.

Let's agree to disagree, because I doubt you and I will come to an agreement over this subject.