Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

@kyleforrester87 Happy days chum. I loved the Nes classic when I got it and have had the 'out of stock' nintendo page set as my homepage since november so that I would see immediately when back in stock and to my surprise tonight I hit the jackpot. Dreams do come true lol. Roll on a few days time and I'll be bathed in old skool goodness again.

Anyhow, sorry for derailment guys, back to the switch. Play ball....

@Kidfried That's true! I forgot about those.

Breath of the Wild was my second favourite game of 2017, but I think a lot of people evangelise it a little too much. The same with Odyssey. If it was called Gary's Adventure Saving The Princess and it was on Xbox I think we'd have paid a little more attention to the flaws it's got. I loved it, and thoroughly enjoyed my time with it, but even while I was playing it I kept thinking how weird it was that it's got objectively bad design choices that were barely mentioned in a lot of reviews aside from the Jim Sterling one that got his site attacked by angry Nintendo fans.

@Ralizah That description would probably turn a bunch of people off, but for me it works since I was never that fussed on the combat in Xenoblade, and it was more the story, the lore, and whatnot that I liked best. And I know people moaned about the voice acting but I thought all of the ridiculous cockney baddies were entertaining. As long as the fighting isn't too dull I'm sure I'll be fine with it. I care more about the story and all that anyway.

@johncalmc Thing is I did not consider myself a Mario fan (in fact I found him downright offputting) until I played Oddysey - my first 3D Mario game - and I have always been able to pretty much take or leave Zelda. I'm glad he isn't running around in a green tunic and I'm not keen on some of the Zelda staples in BOTW (I.e the Gorons and Zora, not the biggest fan!) so i don't think it's just the fact it's a Zelda game or a Mario game thats made them very enjoyable for me - they are just great games. Of course that's just me and no doubt super fans of these franchises would likely get even more out of them than I do.

@kyleforrester87 Oh no, it's not the fact that it's a Zelda or Mario game that makes them enjoyable. They're both great games. What I'm saying is that the level to which how good they are is celebrated is perhaps boosted somewhat because of the nostalgia that many reviewers have for the series'. Like, ask yourself; if Super Mario Odyssey was exactly the same game on Xbox One, called Mike The Plumbers Magical Hat Adventure, would it be a 97 on Metacritic?

Similarly, I think Breath of the Wild was given the rub of the green by a lot of critics, and some of the flaws were glossed over or outright overlooked, whereas in another game they might not have been. I'm an old school Nintendo fan so I get the joy of picking up a new Zelda (or in my case, more-so Mario) and each one you play does carry with it the heritage of great games that have changed the medium forever, but at the same time I can recognise that there are issues with both the latest Mario and Zelda that were glossed over or outright ignored in a lot of reviews. And as someone who writes reviews, I was sat playing them both, thinking, "Hang on, why did nobody talk about this?"

@johncalmc Yeah, it's always the way though isn't it. Arguably flawed films can get good reviews because of the particular director or actors involved. I guess in the end these sort of legacies help form part of the overall experience and shouldn't necessarily be overlooked in the interest of apparent fairness. It can work the other way, too - FF15 has had a bit of a hammering throughout 2017 which it probably wouldn't have done if it didn't carry the prestigious name, so it's isn't always a "free pass".

@kyleforrester87 Yeah, I think it can actually work both ways. Like, Bond films aren't just judged against the contemporary action movies of the day, they're judged against every Bond movie that's ever been, and every actor that has ever played the role. Sometimes the prestige or the heritage of a franchise can actually work against it, from both a critical perspective, and the response from fans who have different criteria that need to be fulfilled than critics. Look no further than the latest Star Wars movie.

Either way, the weapon degradation system in Zelda is totally broken. And that annoyed me. Otherwise, it was a wonderful game. I was expecting to like Mario more as I'm more of a Mario guy, but I absolutely loved Breath of the Wild.

@johncalmc As for the weapon degradation system it's something I'm trying to figure out. It's clearly not perfect but I can't say I totally dislike it either. Normally the weapons you carry in a game like Zelda are a major barometer for your progress so it's...interesting if nothing else to see them go another way with it. It's at its most frustrating when you're awarded a special weapon after beating a Divine Beast that you know will only last one or two battles. Just give me something else instead that I can keep throughout my journey - a new armour piece or something. A way to increase durability or repair items might be good. It's also annoying opening chests to be told your inventory is full (again). But despite this I still don't think it's totally broken, personally.

@kyleforrester87 I think it is. I think it's totes broken. That doesn't mean it can't be fun. But I think it's badly designed. The problem with it is that it actively discourages combat, and that makes it counter-intuitive, creating something analogous to the Elixer Problem in Final Fantasy games.

When you begin the game you pick up a branch and you see a baddie with a club. The club is better than your branch, and so you beat the dude to death with your branch and you take his club. You carry on walking and you see a baddie with a spikey club and that spikey club is better than your bog-standard club so you beat him to death with your club and you take his spikey club. That's standard. The risk-reward gameplay is balanced perfectly. You see someone with something better than what you have, and so it's a calculated risk to fight him knowing that his weapon is better than yours, but that if you win you'll be in a better position.

Partly because of the open-world nature of the game in which there's no right or wrong way to progress, partly down to the lack of experience points or levelling up, and partly down to the loot drops assigned to each enemy, this system collapses once you progress further in the game.

Suddenly, you'll find yourself with a sword, and you'll be surrounded by baddies with spikey clubs. You don't get experience for killing them. You don't get money from most enemies. What you get is crafting materials - which you'll probably be inundated with due to how readily available they are throughout the game and how little you actually need them to progress - and a weapon that is worse than the one you've got. So in that situation, knowing that each time you whack an enemy your weapon will break a little, and knowing that the best you can hope for coming out of the battle is to get a weapon that's worse than the one you're breaking, there's actually no point in fighting at all. The weapon degradation system actively discourages combat more and more the further you progress through the game. The risk-reward is no longer there because you actually have more to lose by fighting, and so in anything other than a situation in which you're surrounded and can't escape, you're better off just running away from battles most of the time.

So what ends up happening - or what happened for me at least - was that I ended up stock-piling weapons and only using them when I absolutely needed to. It's like how in a Final Fantasy game you don't use your elixers in battle because you're saving them for the later, harder bosses. And eventually you get to the last boss and you've got twelve elixers and you don't need them all. In Breath of the Wild, you end up with loads of great weapons that you never want to use.

What's interesting is that this system could so easily be fixed, and yet they didn't do it. And it makes me wonder what the goal was. I played the game for like sixty or seventy hours and I bet for the latter thirty hours I ran away from 90% of the enemies I came across.

Personally I love open world games in general and have no issues with '?'s' on a map - although I do prefer not to see them in a HuD. With big open world games like the Witcher 3, it would be very easy to miss so many - even if you zig-zagged up and down trying to find everything or even hoped to stumble across something naturally. Being off by a few metres can mean missing out on something because the world can be so packed with trees etc. Even the Smugglers caches at sea are very difficult to spot unless you are almost on top of them. Granted, its great if you can turn them on/off as well as any other markers - basically the ability to select from the legend which markers you want to display or not.

Its a bit different if you have more flat-open plains and can see something that may have some point of interest - like a copse of trees. If there are 'hidden' things, that you have to dig for, with no clue, then I would hate not to have 'markers'.

I didn't have an issue with Arkham Knight - not from its open world anyway. I know because its a 'city' that some streets look like other streets etc but I loved the easter eggs and the way the Joker messed with Batmans mind and so things could appear 'different' - statues, posters etc could all change 1 minute and be back to normal the next. I know the fact that it also took place over 1 night and so was always 'dark' - unlike other games that have a day/night cycle.

If anything. Open world action/RPG's are my favourite games at the moment and love exploring, completing side quests etc. I would hate to have to walk up to 'every' NPC over and over again, just in case the have a quest or some information that only triggers at certain points, ie because you have progressed the story, levelled to a certain point or done something that triggers the next 'stage'. I don't agree with weapons breaking. At most I don't mind if they 'deteriorate' or become 'blunted' but I do think you should have the option to repair or resharpen. Maybe if you let a weapon deteriorate to a certain point, then maybe there is a risk of breakage but then the onus is on you to keep your gear maintained. The Witcher 3 has a similar mechanic where weapons deteriorate and can be repaired. Sharpening also does more damage for a period of time too. If you feel you can't use your 'best' weapons on enemies because it may break after a few hits or actively avoid confrontation because of this mechanic, something is fundamentally wrong. It also adds to the 'loot/treasure' hunt - knowing you could find something with better stats to see you through until something better comes along.

@johncalmc There is actually a point to fighting Silver/Gold enemies, namely gems they drop.

Oh and the "boss" monsters.

But regarding regular mooks I have an instance where encountering them is purely beneficial.

In some areas of the game there are Octoroks that suck up rocks to spit at you. You kill them by making them suck a bomb up instead.

Try getting them to inhale one of those many "Rusty" weapons.

@johncalmc I totally understand what you're saying, you've explained a typical risk/reward system that we're used to in video games. But instead of saying it's broken I'm trying to take a view that they've deconstructed this familiar system - should I care that my great weapons have all been destroyed when I raided the enemy encampment, and have now been replaced with wooden spears and twigs? As the Legendary Hero shouldn't my reward be that I've vanquished my foes, and (hopefully) enjoyed the experience of doing so? Then, surely my next adventure should be to replace all the nice stuff I lost?

I appreciate it sounds like I'm reaching here and trying to make a bad system sound good, but I'm trying to approach it with an open mind. Maybe it'll wear me down the more I play, or maybe it'll end up being more and more liberating.

@YummyHappyPills If you want gems, go to Death Mountain, spend an hour there and you have more gems than you will ever need.

@kyleforrester87 Nah, I don't think it's reaching. Things don't have to be perfect for us to like them. It's irrelevant whether the weapon degradation system is well designed or not if you're still feeling like a hero by smashing up an enemy camp. There's nothing wrong with enjoying something despite the shortcomings. I love the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I don't love them because I think they're well made, or well written, or because I think they're perfect, cinematic milestones. I like them because I like watching pirates getting up to piratey shenanigans.

edit: Not that I'm comparing Zelda to Pirates of the Caribbean, of course.

@Octane I know that.

Im also saying there is an inherent reward to tougher/specific enemy combat.

Namely the sucky Octoroks repair Rusted gear and Silver enemies = fat loot

I remember the Nioh alpha had a weapon degradation system. Removed after feedback thankfully.

Weapon degradation might annoy some people, but it's an integral part of the experience: it leads to a constantly evolving arsenal. It forces you to constantly strategize (what weapon do I pick to kill this guy?) and improvise (I'm on my last sword! How do I take this guy out without breaking it?) in the middle of battle, lending it a dynamism in combat missing in most other games. The changing arsenal means you're constantly on the look out for new weapons, and battling stronger enemies is rewarding. It also functions as an ammo system and balances out those really cool strong weapons you find.

@kyleforrester87

'Not perfect, but moving it in a better direction' almost perfectly encapsulates my feelings on BotW. There are numerous (obvious) flaws that I think can and should be addressed in future games, but its fundamental perspective shift on the open world adventure is still really compelling, and I feel like Nintendo has married the better aspects of various different games in the genre together to create something that feels truly adventurous.

Besides, all hyped games have problems. My other favorite game this year was Persona 5, and that one has spammy battle mechanics and is probably 30 hours too long thanks to the insanely bloated script.

@johncalmc People targeting Sterling for his opinion was ridiculous, but it's hardly behavior that's restricted to Zelda or even Nintendo fans.

https://kotaku.com/reviewer-targeted-for-giving-uncharted-4-n...

http://www.indiewire.com/2012/07/dark-knight-rises-critic-rec...

Bottom line: toxic fanboys suck.

EDIT: Oh, and Re: Xenoblade 2, I really liked the changes in the combat. I thought the system in the first game made the battles more tedious than anything. The changes they've introduced are a bit harder to work with, initially, but they make almost every battle fun once you know what you're doing and have a few blades to switch between.

Then again, I thought Xenoblade 1 was a mediocre game at best, so keep that in mind.

@Shellcore Thank God. Nioh was much better without it.

Generally I just hate weapon degradation systems. I can't think of a single one which made a game more enjoyable. Not off the top of my head. And I think Zelda's is especially bad.

On the plus side, other than the weapon degradation and a few slightly ropey dungeons, the majority of the game is a home run. I absolutely loved it, and I wasn't expecting to.

@Ralizah I don't think I'd agree with any of that (about Zelda). I don't think it's integral to the experience at all and I think the experience would be better without it. There's literally no point fighting most enemies once you're at the point where you've say, done two of the four main objectives (being vague to avoid spoilers). By that point you've got some strong weapons, and most of the enemies are carrying weaker ones. By far the best progress route is to not fight standard mobs and then just use your best weapons against the bosses. You're encouraged not to fight, regardless of whether it's by coincidence or design.

The strategy thing I could perhaps buy, but again, only if there was any point to fighting at all. If enemies carried some kind of valuable commodity, for example, and so you had to think about how to take them out with your nearly broken weapon that could be interesting, maybe. But when all they're carrying is a couple of horns or teeth which you've got gajillions of, the best strategy is to not use your weapon at all.

I spent hours thinking about while I was playing the game and I couldn't think of a single positive to the system beyond it forcing you to try out different weapons instead of just picking one and sticking to it, and even that felt like I was meeting them more than half way.

Fortunately, the rest of the game was great, and I'm sure if they do another similar Zelda game then they'll iron out the wrinkles. Just wandering around the world was amazing, and the shrines were treat. Combat was fun, if somewhat basic, too, until it became redundant.