If TotK is mid then what's a great game in the same genre?
If you say BG3 it will be obvious you didn't read the italicised part.
TotK and BotW both share the same problem IMO, though TotK fares far far better. Theyre not Zelda games, they're open world Ubisoft games with the Zelda name and way less bugs.
Both are locked to a console that can't even properly run them. Playing on PC with better framerates and weapon durability disabled definitely help them feel more fun, but ultimately they give about as much fun as a game like Far Cry 5 or 6.
Once I completed the main quest I just haven't ever gone back to them, and I probably never will. But I have replayed through Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Twilight Princess at least 5 times each.
Being in the same genre, how specific do you want? Open world fantasy? Elden Ring IMO. Zelda games? Pick any of the ones made after Zelda II and before BotW, CDi games not included, and you're probably going to have a more "Zelda" experience. RPGs just in general? Probably Chrono Trigger or Divinity Original Sin 2.
Downvote me if you must but I finished AND enjoyed both Far Cry 5 and 6.
Huh, lots of opinions on BOTW and "if I disable a mechanic on PC, the game is not fun".
I've enjoyed both botw and totk, but not to completion.
I do feel like they are both tech demo iterations.
Botw introducing actual physics and creativity as puzzle solving possibilities. Totk introducing "everything is physics" and relying on creativity for puzzle solving.
Botw story was mid. Totk story was better.
Botw dungeons were terrible. Totk dungeons were better, and some had a bit more girth/depth to them.
I feel like now that they've cracked the "everything is physics", and iterated dungeon designs... The next one will hopefully feel a lot more Zelda.
At least, I hope so.
But, same genre...
What do you class totks genre as?
“if I disable a mechanic on PC, the game is not fun”
To be clear, disabling weapon durability made the game more fun.
The mechanic itself was ass. I wouldn't have played further without disabling it.
The game literally hands weapons out like candy, and the master sword regens in like 5 mins… sounds like you just wanted to use the “best” weapon you found and never downgrade again instead of getting creative with all the monster parts, which is boring as fuck.
I don't hate either side of this and beat BotW on switch with no mods. As a compulsive looter from Borderlands, juggling what to drop or not drop became annoying when I knew how much more game there was to play. I wanted to keep exploring everything and not worry about being equipped correctly when I was focused on exploring the world. I understand the drive to build and prep for the next big battle. I also just want to play through the world and not add hours of item management when there's already many more hours of playing. To each their own I guess.
That’s a fair point! The game definitely does drag in the exploration part towards the end if you’re trying to do all the shrines and light up the things in the underground. I used a simple hover bike made of two fans and a seat to get around, and it still took forever. I can’t imagine just running around everywhere on foot, and a lot of the topography (especially underground) didn’t seem too friendly to using a ground vehicle…
Right, disabled weapon durability. At which point there is no point to explore the map. That was the gist, right? So, I skipped a stage by describing the start and the end of the chain of events.
Weapon durability itself isn't fun, but forces you to explore.
If you can't be bothered reading dialog, so you skip it all, then say a game has no story, doesn't make sense and never explains anything.
You are no longer having to read all the dialog, but you miss all the detail.
Short term gains long term pains.
I wouldn’t have played further without disabling it.
Me, 13 hours ago.
It's a "cheat code" kind of thing. Are games more fun when you're invincible? When you have the best weapon?
I used to play games with cheat codes. They don't make the game "more fun" outright. They allow you to condense some fun into a shorter chunk of time, then the game subsequently has less replayability.
Deactivating weapon durability might make the game "more fun" in the short term, at the cost of reduced long-term playability. So it's no surprise that people who activated this particular cheat code had an experience like that of most cheat codes, reduced long-term enjoyment.
Pretty much any open world game, including Ubisoft ones.
In botw I realized once I disabled weapon durability that there is very little reason to explore the world once I got a decent weapon; that part of the game is contrived exclusively to justify weapon durability. So the open world sucks.
Then the "dungeons", the core and lifeblood of a Zelda game, are just one puzzle room that that takes 10 minutes. So it's a bad Zelda game.
And I know it's subjective but I just found the game boring. Like the game was made for young children so they couldn't make it too interesting to play. There was nothing interesting, or novel about it other than the glider, which other games have copies since then, so it's no longer unique. Compared to other open world games it was extremely bare bones. Even open world games before it had more stuff to do, and certainly more engaging combat.
It felt like a tech demo more than a game, and it's only impressive in the condescending way a console game can be called impressive. "Oh you made this game to work on a potato battery? Wow! Good for you!"
On top of that, I never appreciated Nintendo's business model of forcing me to buy a $300 console on top of $60 just to play the Mario, or the Zelda.
Pretty much any open world game, including Ubisoft ones.
Sorry, you can't really compare a game like Zelda to spreadsheets with todo-items.
The exploration mechanics alone were masterfully done in a way that only Nintendo had both the budget and the courage to experiment with.
Most other open worlds just shit all these icons with busywork on your map, while Botw actually fostered exploration and curiosity.
The exploration in BoTW/ToTK was just exploration with shipping lists.
“I need new weapons, food, and some Korok seeds. Where’s my spreadsheet of Fibonacci numbers so I can remember how many seeds I need”
No, it was like"ohh, what's over there? That there looks interesting! Look, a shrine! Let's get to that tower to find more interesting places!"
I never tried to stats out my BotW run.
Just because you like the setting doesn't make it intrinsically more interesting.
Plenty of people feel that way about far cry and assassin's creed, it's exciting for them to climb the next tower and see what is in new areas.
I was talking about the mechanics, not the setting. AC and Far Cry jizz icons all over the map with a cinematic once you climb a tower, while Botw's exploration is more organic and free-form.
But weapons are a reward for exploring, because exploration is the game.
What was even original about the glider? Gliding / parachuting mechanics have been around forever. Just Cause had them ages ago. Even Spyro games in the 90's had them.
PCMR is an thing for a reason.
People really hate weapon durability, huh? I thought it was kind of genius, and that TotK introducing a way to repair weapons was really bad for the gameplay loop.
TotK didn't introduce a way to repair weapons, it reduced their durability to near nothing then gave you a way to buff them.
I played it on a PC and I love it. There's a shitton of detail and interaction. If TOTK is mid, what's truly a masterpiece? 🤨
Majora's Mask
That's the only Zelda game I can't get to click for me, I first played it at release and I'm still trying to like it lol
The time limit thing just isn't fun for me
It's completely true. I like to call this the Halo effect. It's a pretty mid game that's entirely alone on it's platform, and therefore is massively popular and stands out.
That doesn't mean there aren't some fun features, like great physics, but that doesn't mean it's a truly great game.
No way you just said Halo was mid
I have played halo 1, 2, 3, and 4 front to back on legendary. It is one of my only accomplishments as a gamer, I have completed almost no other games. No ODST or Reach for me though, because I am unlucky.
Halo is a shooter from a pre-call of duty, pre-titanfall, pre-brink, pre-mirror's edge era. It doesn't have really any interesting movement mechanics, and the . The grappling hook in infinite is maybe a response to this other, better variety of FPS, but I still think it kinda comes up flat. It has basically no interesting cover mechanics. Post-doom, quake, unreal tournament, and boomer shooter, though, and those had good movement, so who fuckin knows what their deal is.
No, halo's much slower. Halo, you have a slower walk speed, your enemy projectiles are supposed to move much slower since they're all plasma based and you're usually offered the opportunity to have hitscan weapons. So your movement still matters, it's just less interesting. Most of the appeal of halo comes about as a result of this slower movement speed affording more easily made levels, with more interesting level design, and more easily made enemy AI with more interesting behaviors. Basically, where other shooters make the core gameplay as fun as possible, on the player's side, making the player a more interesting character to control and use, Halo would rather make everything else as fun as possible, everything around that core.
Most FPS's just have like, open spaces, and then corridors, and then big rooms, and that's basically it, because they can't make the level geometry super complicated without screwing up the player's movement options, or over-complicating everything since the player can either look at enemies or look at the level design and usually not at both at the same time, which is also why they mostly always try to keep you moving towards the enemies, or why unreal tournament relies so much on you memorizing the arenas.
I think this means that when most people evaluate Halo, they're doing so by measuring it against other shooters, and against this other philosophy, and Halo obviously ends up as pretty mid when measured against that. It also doesn't help that Halo can be pretty hit and miss with this philosophy, since this relies more on very consistently interesting changes in level design and enemy variety to keep things spicy, and this novelty tends to wear off as the series inevitably chugs along. It also doesn't help, the number of mid shooters which followed in Halo's wake, or are reminiscent of halo specifically because of this lack of mechanical complexity, this minimalism, but without understanding what made Halo good, was that they made up for it with a lot more hard work poured into the rest of the game.
I don't think it would be a major mistake to call halo mid, especially on the average, and especially as the series chugs along, and there's really just less and less to do in order to make it interesting, both in the story and in the basic design. At the same time, the series does have some pretty high highs, and probably Halo is one of the most interestingly designed first person shooters I've seen, because it's so hard to see the depth at first glance.
As someone that has no nostalgia for the series, I have to agree with them. Halo was mid
As someone who never had nostalgia for it. It's not mid
I've been playing through the Halo series recently as I missed the craze growing up because I had a PlayStation and I'm not really getting it. I'm guessing it's just something you had to be there for? My first game was Super Mario World on the SNES and I loved COD4 when it dropped but trying to play Halo now is just not doing it for me I guess.
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
