Where will Zelda: Breath of the Wild land among open-world games?

If you drink Nintendoaid daily then this is the best game every created in human history and has the best graphics comparable to none.

Gamespot gave it a 7.5, which is still a bit high in my opinion. I'd maybe say 7 for it if I was feeling generous, which I often am not when it comes to that game.

I explain a lot of the kind of interactivity this game has in this preview for it that I wrote after some hands on time with the game.

I'm not expecting that much when it comes to the open world part of this game (at least when compared to the kings of it, like the Witcher and Shenmue), but I do think that the climbing mechanic is what's going to make Zelda standout.

I hope it lands right on my junk because that game looks like pure sex.

@jg4xchamp: And how do you get a pass for every insult you throw at me?

God forbid I don't get cocky after Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword. And for f*** sake, did I say the reviews would be bad? Jeez...

Curse you for making me look this up on Metacritic.

Twilight Princess - 95

Skyward Sword - 93

???

Skyrim will be sitting with a higher metacritic score, I believe it's 96%, which makes it almost as good as Halflife 2.

A couple of special snowflakes will try to be cool and say "oh oh Bethesda bad", but sales and pretty much every critic say otherwise, a forum rant won't change that fact. Eat it.

Because Metacritic averages match up to different opinions. Didn't stop the fact that, when TP (which I was very disappointed with) released, Zelda fans HATED that one up until Skyward Sword, especially when Tom McShea gave his review. And it's why I'm not going to get cocky.

@nintendoboy16:

You said.

Even critically, I don't see it doing that well.

Champ said.

A franchise that gets routinely apologized for as much as Zelda won't review as well, based on what?

You said.

God forbid I don't get cocky after Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword.

---

Guess I'm just confused as to what you're getting at here.

Both of those games were received incredibly well by "critics". Sooo....

???

@ConanTheStoner: Look, just end it with a 'lol nintendoboy' and move on to the next argument. It's as predictable as Lucy calling Charlie Brown and Linus 'blockheads'.

But if you really want to know, I'm just implying that I don't see this next game faring as well as others in reviews. Besides the downward reception of TP and SS (besides Metacritic scores), by the looks of the world, I see it getting criticized for feeling lacking compared to other games following the open world trend. Then again, I'll eat crow if I'm wrong.

Yeah, I won't lie, this is probably what I was driving at, even if I wasn't thinking about it lol.

But ok, that's fair. That's all I was wondering, what your reasoning was.

Personally, I disagree. On top of this game looking very promising, I think this industry is a long ways away from abandoning its sacred cows. I think Nintendo would need to churn out a few complete butthole mainline Zelda games in a row before these critics say "hmmm, so maybe it's not amazing".

Nintendo spaces these Zelda games so well that it always feels like an event when they launch. A lot of underlying nostalgia starts driving emotions, people get excited, hyperbole sets in, etc. This is on top of the fact that they've all been solid games at least. So we have something that at the very least has good aspects due to Nintendos design chops. And then it gets propelled into "OMG Amazing!" due to other factors that this industry can't grow out of.

I'm betting on it being a great game in its own right, but even if not, I can't imagine these critics actually being critics. 90+ Meta is guaranteed. 95+ isn't impossible.

Edit: If it doesn't land at 90+ Meta in the end, you're free to design my sig and avy in the worst way you can imagine. You can have your revenge on me lol.

Skyward Sword wasn't a solid game.

Yeah, I suppose that's a vague term.

I guess what I mean is that it's polished, functions as intended (usually), and has some good qualities. Motion controls being annoying and some shitty design choices, sure, but not actually a bad game.

Maybe they too want my question answered.

It's gonna be a Ubisoft open world game. But since it's Zelda people will cream their shorts and give it a pass for doing nothing new and mostly being busy work.

@mems_1224: Or itll be just like Zelda, but more open.

can't wait for the "Witcher 3 vs Zelda" threads..

Eh.

I think it'll be fun to dick around in, Lord knows Nintendo's more creative than half the clowns out there, but I also have my doubts about what goes beyond a checklist on a marketing tool and what will actually compel me to enjoy it as a sandbox.

The kitchen sink has gotten significantly dirtier the more Rockstar, Ubisoft, and god knows who else has started using it, and I couldn't pick upon a more dour period of Nintendo for me to hype up a game. That being said, it's been six years since the last one, they're releasing it on a competent looking console this time, the Zelda series will still get apologized for but it'll stick out more for idiosyncrasies the past games got away with, and I... Ok I kind of trust vidja reviewers to be more honest in this day and age. At least compared to last generation when I'm sure if you paid the outlet enough ad revenue, they'd probably give fucking change.

It was a fine game. I can't honestly believe why SS is so unbelievably trashed here but Wind Waker of all games is loved. Design wise that game from Forest Haven on is complete and utter trash. And I would say Absolutely nothing in all of Wind Waker comes close to being as good as the Lanayru desert sections. And SS did have huge pacing issues and some oddly designed choices but it's not like it's a case of one game having high highs and low lows while Wind Waker is solid all the way through. Wind Waker had atrocious pacing too. It had charm but it was an altogether lifeless unfinished game with lame level design.

I have no problem with people not liking the game but Skyward Sword being this odd scapegoat while Wind Waker is seen as a classic really bugs me.

It's not the first open world Zelda game. It's the second, maybe even third (Zelda 1 for sure, and A Link Between Worlds maybe - not sure about that though, I'd have to replay it to remember. If I recall correctly, it had an open structure but didn't feel like a full blown open world).

In terms of how it ranks, among the best.

About the open world, one thing that I'm really excited about is the shrines. It seems simple but the fact that Nintendo said that even finding a lot of them is a challenge in itself is exactly what open worlds need. Not some stupid "hey you came to this out of the way secret spot, here's a snowflake file. Collect 200 to get an achievement to show off online." The reward for exploration and discovery should be fun gameplay, not some useless item or collectible. Whenever I find some secret area in a game I always expect some kind of boss, or special enemy or ANYTHING. So, that Nintendo is actually giving an incentive to explore its world other than the players natural inclination to do so is a very good sign.

Its the best game none of you have ever played for sure.

Nah, ain't taking that risk. :P