ALBW was an odd one for me. I guess I found it a bit... Unremarkable?
Yes, I played it to the end, yes, it was entertaining while it lasted... But... After playing it once, I don't really feel like replaying it any time soon. One time was more than enough.
It's not like I do complete Zelda playthroughs every week, but I will start a new file just to play every now and then. For example, with ALttP on the gba I always restart my file as soon as I beat Ganon (I love that it gives the option do it, without needing to delete the file).
The Wind Waker was 'a sequel.' Twilight Princess was a spiritual successor.
ALBW copied the damn map.
Because mountains disappearing, new lakes and rivers forming and hills moving over the space of a hundred years makes sense. At least someone went and renovated the dungeons, filled it with treasure and invited some new monsters to stay and party.
I've never beaten A Link to the Past—only played it for a few hours on gameboy so long ago I can't even remember when—and I literally knew where everything was in that game.
I'd guess that the numerous other Zeldas that feature remade versions of the same general geography helped with that.
Actually they all feel really different to me. I mean, specifically, forest in the NE, desert in the SW, lake in the SE, and a waterfall in the NE with the zoras. And the village and castle as well.
I think ALBW was pretty good. It did what it set out to do and it did it well. It was a bit on the easy side, but I think that's just a consequence of the more open nature they tried to have with it.
Hasn't it? Skyward Sword was pretty controversial. To say nothing of Triforce Heroes. Plus there's just been less Zelda games.
You're generalising your own opinions onto the entire audience. Skyward Sword has 93% on metacritic. A Link Between Worlds has 91%. The Zelda series hasn't fallen anywhere.
Most every Zelda game has a 90% on metacritic. That means nothing. Besides, I'm talking about the audience, not reviewers.
If it meant nothing, people wouldn't even bother reading reviews. It clearly means something.
And the audience opinions generally have matched the critics with Zelda. The Skyward Sword rating is a bit lower, which I think can mostly be explained by the divisive nature of the hardware control scheme. The Link Between Worlds score is pretty much the same though. 91% from the critics. 89% from the users.
You cannot—Can. Not.—quantify opinion. It's not a measurable thing. Moreover, individual reviews for tenured AAAs like Zelda always land in the 90s (even MGS V, an ostensibly incomplete game, got 10s on several sites). It doesn't mean anything besides that people like Zelda generally and expect it to be praised.
The entire concept of the Zelda cycle disproves your assertion that reviews are indicative of the public opinion of a Zelda game.
@Smash_kirby: That's what happens when one person complaints about a game and others join the conversation. They are in no way representative of the entire fanbase.
Forums
Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Posts 5,841 to 5,860 of 15,166
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic