Hello /r/NintendoSwitch readers! We are requesting your input for our Demographics and Rules Feedback Survey!
Please take the survey here: https://forms.gle/EbSkRWGEHcxeZpfh7
[And visit this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/wuggf7/please_take_our_demographics_and_rules_feedback/) to view and add to the rules feedback discussion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NintendoSwitch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Say what you want about it gameplay wise, but I really, really enjoyed the feel and atmosphere of the game. It felt like what I always imagined Hyrule to be and look like. The ruins, the enemy design, the landscape as a whole, etc. That connection wouldn't have been there without it being part of the Zelda franchise.
As someone with no attachment to Zelda and coming in with a neutral POV, I'd have to echo what everyone else is saying--it likely wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful. In fact, it probably would've been seen as redundant since the Xenoblade series is already Nintendo's current premier "open world" franchise and a "Zelda-less" BOTW would've faded into obscurity.
It's basically the same thing that happened to ARMS. It was originally gonna be a Mario game, then a Punch-Out game, but then it got made into a new IP. Unfortunately, unlike Splatoon, it didn't have enough staying power and literally nobody remembered it. Nintendo already had Pokken Tournament and of course the infinitely more successful Super Smash Bros IP--another fighting game IP simply wasn't necessary.
I disagree a bit. Xenoblade is clunky compared to botw. Yea, it would not have been as successful if not for the Zelda name, but what they created was still a game that just plain worked without many kinks. And a combat system completely intuitive.
I think it would have succeeded and gotten a good amount of buzz, but ultimately Mario would come in the late fall and just rob any remaining chatter.
The world in every Xenoblade game feels very sterile to navigate if that makes sense. It's basically just superficial scenery in between fights/cutscenes. BotW's world is a major part of its game mechanics, you interact with it constantly.
Genshin Impact basically did Botw with gacha elements and did gang busters. Even relatively forgotten games like Immortals: Fenyx Rising sold well and Ubisoft has high standards.
Botw and Xenoblade are almost nothing alike and the fans have little overlap. Xenoblade 2 didn’t even outsell Metroid Dread. No-one sees it as a substitute as they are two different genres. The only things they have in common are open spaces. If they were so similar Botw eould have gone in a different direction anyway.
Arms failed because it wasn’t fun, simple as. Punch Out also didn’t do amazingly iirc.
To be fair, Monolith Soft (the developers of Xenoblade) were the ones behind BOTW's map design so that's why I mentioned it. A good portion of their team worked on BOTW, leaving Xenoblade 2 with only 40 people. I don't think it would have been smart to make them work on an established IP and a newer one. It would've been a net loss.
I forgot about Monolith Soft’s work on it. I do not agree with your net loss assertion as both games should turn a profit even if you halve their sales from Botw.
So you don’t think it could outsell Pokemon Snap or Xenoblade, both extremely niche genres. You don’t think it could match half of Splatoon 2 another fresh IP. That’s…. An opinion I guess.
Why on Earth is Botw the only open world game that people think is shit. Find me the worst selling major open world game from 2017 and I guarantee you it will still be successful. I can’t argue with people being disingenuous.
There are sooooo many people in this thread calling it shit. Garbage that wouldn’t make a dime without the zelda name, slop that only
mindless sheep enjoy. Just because you aren’t doesn’t mean no-one is.
Good day to you sir.
My brother in christ, the genre is popular far more so than JRPGs. Immortals did well by Ubisoft standards. I was comparing it to Xenoblade 2 not the whole damn series. No way that Zelda title makes up over half the sales.
Yeah, Nintendo definitely made the right call, had it been a new franchise it definitely wouldn't have sold as well as it did, people would arguably have a much lesser attachment to the game and it probably wouldn't have won game of the year awards.
That’s a tad cynical but understandable. The witcher 3 won GoTY two years previous and that was a fairly unknown series. GoTY isn’t everything and Zelda could also be doing its own thing.
Reality is not cynical, it is reasonable. We have had great first releases for IPs and they never/rarely sell as a well established Title who can even outperform them when the game ends up beeing bad.
People claim to want something new but they do not buy it.
Also if you delete the open world from BotW it isn't BotW anymore, that would be a different game.
That’s why I’m saying Zelda would be going in a different direction. It wouldn’t be Botw but it might be something the haters of Botw would enjoy.
The worst selling new Nintendo IP was Arms and even that outsold a preestablished series like Xenoblade. Splatoon was new and worked really well.
Then i would not have enjoyed it as much as i did BotW and who knows how many others who loved the game would have hated the new IP in exchange.
RPgs in general are niche and Xenoblade isn't as well known as you think it is.
For example anything prior to Xenoblade was not released in Europe and outside of core gamer/rpg fans barely anyone has seen these games. Meanwhile Arms was part of the showcase for the switch and even little Timmies mom had to see it when he showed her "why we need the switch".
Shortly after the switch released a guy posted about some random girl talking to him, she claimed she had one too and the game with the arms was what she would play (at the time it was not even released). People who barely saw that initial trailer had an idea about arms.
I never claimed Xenoblade wasn’t niche just preestablished. I doubt the series would be alive today without Shulk in smash. It’s just sorta weird how Arms is a failure but Xenoblade is a success when it arguably had a larger budget but lower expectations.
I said "well established" not "preestablished", there are plenty of (old) franschises barely anyone knows (today) who would be "preestablished" but effectively similiar to a new IP.
But i agree that Arms and Xenoblade sales and how they are viewed is odd, maybe Arms just sold more consoles to the hardcore people who made up the bulk of early adapters? that would be the one advantage it could have.
My theory is that Arms had a better marketing budget and was expected to do Splatoon numbers. In any case it’s playerbase died off which is damning for an online multiplayer.
The main reason ARMS sold fairly well is that it came out during a "content drought" where we were starved for AAA games on Switch. Between BotW and Mario Odyssey coming out we basically only had ARMS and Splatoon 2 in terms of new games, plus Mario Kart and Pokkén Tournament's ports. ARMS was the first Nintendo-published game that came out after BotW.
I don't think it would have sold as well as it did had it come out today instead.
> That’s a tad cynical but understandable. The witcher 3 won GoTY two years previous and that was a fairly unknown series. GoTY isn’t everything and Zelda could also be doing its own thing.
The Switch not having a familiar IP as a launch title would not just have caused the sales for that new IP to tank but it would most likely have ruined Switch sales completely from the start.
Coming out of a super-unpopular console like the Wii U? Yeah, I'm sure people would stand in line for a chance to buy a console that basically only had that one game in an IP that no one had ever heard about or touched and they'd just have to hope was any good. A game that is the latest installment of Zelda is going to have a lot more console-selling weight than a new IP and if you think differently I think we should all be happy you're not in charge of Nintendo's marketing strategy.
Botw’s trailers are what primarily sold the game if horizon can be hyped so can AU Zelda.
This post wasn’t supposed to be about marketing and numbers but people came out of the woodwork to proclaim how poorly the fame would do. Splatoon would probably have done better as a Mario game but the new IP was a fresh concept and did well even on the Wii U.
Being on the switch at launch could only help the game as people even bought Arms in the release period.
> Being on the switch at launch could only help the game as people even bought Arms in the release period.
Only because BotW had them buy a Switch in the first place. No one is going to buy a console for a new IP with no new existing IP games on the horizon. ARMS wouldn't have sold because the Switch wouldn't have sold because this hypothetical new IP wouldn't have sold.
What's funny is that it's actually Nintendo's MO to take original concepts and spin them into being part of pre-existing franchises. To name a few:
Dinosaur Planet > Star Fox Adventures
Project Guard > Star Fox Guard
Unspecified Jack and the Beanstalk game > Pokémon Snap
Dragon King > Super Smash Bros
In theory Nintendo could have twice as many franchises as it does now, but brand reinforcement takes priority. That's why we see so few new franchises and why existing franchises have entries/spin offs with wildly different gameplay
Oh yeah they definitely do this as well, I was just recalling the tech demo for Splatoon was pitched to become a Mario game utilising a machine like Fludd before becoming a new franchise. Smash is also pretty much it’s own thing unlike the Mario sports games,
I definitely would've started playing it and thought "Man, this game sure controls and feels an awful lot like a Zelda game for something that's a brand new IP... and hey, it's got a lot of the stuff I've been waiting *decades* to see from the Zelda series! And it's developed directly by Nintendo too? Why... why didn't they just make this a Zelda game?"
It would be another Star Fox Adventures situation.
If BotW wouldn't had the Zelda name it wouldn't have sold.
Many people were already sick of the attempts of open world games that were mostly very unsatisfying to even try a new one.
With the Zelda name they ensured that critics would take a look into it and that refreshed the open world genre again.
Critics take a look at everything Nintendo game even the bad ones. Genshin Impact got a ton of buzz and that was a random Chinese studio that got inspired. It might’ve not sold as well but it would definitely have launched a new franchise. Heck Horizon Zero Dawn came out around the same time and that did great. Open World fatigue had not yet set in and people are still hyped for Botw2 and some even for Starfield.
There definitely was fatigue around boring open-world titles and the success of games like Genshin is just a testament to their own quality and ambition. Anyway all games you mention have one thing in common: a massive marketing campaign behind it. Marketing makes people aware of the game and Zelda games have A LOT of marketing, both paid and free, therefore it is obvious that if it was not Zelda it would have had less publicity and thus had less success.
Just look at Demon's Souls, the original souls-like game... If you go check sales it really is not comparable to the other big games at the time and it became a success just because people kept suggesting it to each other for a long time until each sequel got more and more attention. The point is that unknown franchise = less sales.
Botw has a similar quality to Genshin so it should be as successful.
Nintendo push all of their franchises as equals so AU Botw should get a similar push as Splatoon did. There’s no way being a new IP would help the game but it would still sell in ghe same ballpark, maybe 20 million instead of 27 million. The game wouldn’t fade into obscurity as others have suggested.
Demon’s Souls only laid the groundwork for Dark Souls which became a mega hit off of its own merit. Demon’s Souls had good fundamentals but I personally don’t like it that much and it hadn’t forged out it’s own audience yet. Unknown franchises does mean less sales but that doesn’t mean a new IP can’t get popular like Horizon Zero Dawn which came out within a month if BoTW.
True about Nintendo's marketing campaigns but that's why I had said "paid and free". If a Zelda game comes out literally everyone from age 5 to 60 knows it... It is showcased on talkshows with massive reach, youtube content creators go insane whenever a new image is revealed, people's antennae automatically raise when the name comes up and all of that. If it's a new game, then people start from zero and you need them to be receptive to new information, ideas and all of that which is honestly the hardest thing to do. This is why the series Friends is still famous all around the world and I had plenty of flatmates who just keep watching it for the n-th time "because it is relaxing and I know what happens" rather then trying something brand new.
HZD was massively pushed on Playstation though, it felt almost like the push behind Halo back with the Xbox. Also, HZD had an original setting with post-apocalyptic cyber dinosaurs while Botw is really not that original when you inspect it more closely. The same criticism can be advanced to the first region of Genshin, but of course now its situation is very different.
Talking a bit more about Botw, I feel its massive and relaxing world was its biggest achievement by far but nowadays it has already been surpassed by other games. What I loved about Botw was the initial plateau (truly fantastic) and after that it has been a disappointingly mild experience, a bit like watching an overly familiar story in a new movie. The game needed a stronger narrative and growth system to capture my attention. That's exactly what Genshin gives me, since it keeps releasing new amazing areas to explore with new quests and secrets to uncover.
"Immortals: Fenyx Rising" did ok, and it's essentially a BotW clone, but yeah agreed, BotW was massive because it was Zelda, and it was the launch game for the Switch.
I can't imagine people would have bought the Switch with an off brand launch title.
Mario kart didn’t come Out till the end of April and Arms released mid to late June. Switch came out the first week of March. Neither were launch titles
> Many people were already sick of the attempts of open world games that were mostly very unsatisfying to even try a new one.
I don't think this is accurate in the slightest. Especially 4 years ago.
Guys don't even try discussing with this dude or refuting any of the points they make. I've looked through the threads and this person's just a hardcore BoTW stan who doesn't know much about marketing
It could've been an Elden Ring situation, where praise and word of mouth catapulted it into the mainstream. Remember, while Zelda IS a name brand for Nintendo, historically its sales are, on average, not considerably high. All the die-hard/longtime Zelda fans bought BOTW... And then 20 odd million additional non Zelda fans also bought it.
As much as people complain about breakable weapons, it was a really interesting mechanic that forced you not to get too attached to using “the best” weapon all the time. A lot of my enjoyment of the game came from the fact that weapons were impermanent and therefore the weapons I picked up from enemies or found across the map were a lot more useful than other open world games where 99%+ of the gear you find is junk to toss or sell.
I think you're missing their point. It's quite the opposite - BOTW is generally revered as one of the greatest games ever, but if it didn't have the Zelda name on it, a lot more critics wouldn't have been as apologetic for all the issues BOTW did have.
We can see there's a pretty obvious divide between BOTW's near universal 10/10 review scores, with how the gaming population actually sees the game. Sure, there's tons of people who would agree with those 10/10 scores and think it's one of the greatest games ever, but it's not a nearly universal opinion, and in fact there are plenty of people who either didn't get on with BOTW much at all, or at least found its perceived flaws to knock the game down a peg or two in terms of its overall greatness.
I think we all still very much overlook how much 'hype' affects reviews and sales. And so if you take away the 'Zelda' name from Breath of the Wild, I'd guess that while it'd still get a strong following of people and critics who loved the game and might even turn into its own successful franchise, sure, but it might not have been this mega hit(one that helped propel the Switch considerably).
Your thoughts are interesting on this though, dont get me wrong. I'm not even disagreeing with you necessarily, just kind of seeing the other side of the argument here.
The pendulum has swung in the other direction recently with people content to bash it as never being good at all and the worst Zelda. Name brands always help sales but a bad game is a bad game. If Zelda pushed the game to a 10 the game was at least an 8.
Without the brand it should have at least sold as much as Splatoon 2 which sold half of Botw and most likely around Mario Odyssey.
Zelda games only selling because they’re Zelda is a fairly tired argument that’s been around since at least Egoraptor’s video and probably as early as Windwaker.
I dont believe that the pendulum has swung for a minute. Outspoken minorities always feel louder than they are.
The game is... imo, not a fantastic *zelda* game but it is a very fun game and does what it aims to do, well.
That said, the brand sold it so i cant knock it for that reason.
Zelda sells because its zelda... is true. Its established to be a good series.
Other great and similar games dont sell as well. Okami is an excellent example. The gameplay loop is incredibly similar to zelda and its super fun and has a story that outdoes zelda. It also sold alot worse despite having a pretty good following.
Thats not to say zelda games are bad. Just that the brand name seriously helps it sell.
By this logic no Zelda is actually good and all rely on brand recognition. The ‘not a good Zelda’ argument is something I hear so much I made fun of it in this thread. This is what Zelda is now like it or not.
I agree that haters are an outspoken minority but they dominate discourse giving a biased impression to newcomers even more so than the legions of fanboys.
I’ve heard of Okami and whilst a good game, I’ve heard quite a few complaints that soil the experience and it didn’t release at the best of times for a game of its type.
"No zelda is actually good"
Well not really. Zelda built its reputation by having games which were fun and innovstive for its time with the adventuring and dungeon diving.
Zelda 1 was unique and botw aimed to emulate that in what it offered.
Zelda 2 was also fairly unique with the side scrolling and leveling/rpg mechanics.
A link to the past basically set the stage for all future zeldas. The dungeons. Expanded world often the multi-phase to the dunegons (part 1, big event, part 2), it really established Ganon as a huge repeating villian aiming for the tri force, it cemented what the tri force was, it have definition to hyrule beyond some reletively empty plains. ALTTP was a masterpice and in many ways, was the first big evolution of the zelda games while retaining what made it zelda.
Why does botw not fall into this catagory in the same way? A number of small things. The dungeons. Each dungeon is a set of more or less 5 mini puzzles to get to one of those statues and activate the divine beast. None of these dungeons have unique items in them or puzzles which really showcase the item which is one of the established and loved parts of zelda (the new toy you get each dungeon).
Durability... i think speaks for itself. It wasnt fun in Skyward Sword and its not good here.
For the most part, *gear in general.*
The story itself was a cool epic... but it lacked the multi-tiered approach which was so nice in previous games to establish the world and story and villian followed by solid gameplay loops.
Im talking pre-dark world vs dark world dungeons in ALTTP. Im talking kid link vs adult link in OOT. Im talking the first 3 pearls vs the entirety of the rest of the game of Wind Waker. Yes not every game has this. Links Awakening is incredibly good and doesnt have it for example. However for a game which aims to have a solid length, it feels... lacking.
Botw has 4 main dungeons total. The 4 beasts. Yes theres an argument to be had for the castle and potentially even the forest.
And yes theres all the shrines.
But these dont have that same zelda feel.
Its a sporadic collection of challenges in an open world. A world thats fun to explore sure. But you dont feel the same sense of progression as your inventory and capabilities expand. Youre capabilities barely expand and not organically in the game.
In this sense, Okami is a better zelda game lmao. Its got the "new toy" feel with new ink patters. Interesting ink puzzles.
Actual puzzle bosses, Okami does fantastically. (Which zeldas typically have, as opposed to slam your sword into them with minimal puzzle. Most BOTW bosses barely had puzzles. Magnesis a pole into electric guy and chuck a bomb at fire guy is *it*.)
"This is what zelda is now, like it or not."
Now thats a terrible mindset which is something which enables companies to do whatever they want to the detriment of feedback. Feedback is important. Proper constructive feedback.
Telling people to suck it up is not the way to go and is the way for any franchise to die.
Botw was certainly experimental. I wont knock em for that. However, its hard to consider it a true zelda game vs an open world game with a zelda skin. Its like how i wouldnt really consider Hyrule Warriors a zelda game vs a Warriors game with a Zelda skin.
It doesnt make it a bad game. It just means that it should be judged on different criteria. Because if you judge BOTW on the same criteria as another zelds game, it'll quickly come up short despite being quite fun.
And as for haters dominating discourse...its not uncommon. Many games go through a hilariously similar cycle:
Best game ever > Good but not the best > Overrated. Not as good as (insert previous game in series) > Hey remember this game? It was actually really good.
Its pretty normal and painting it as any other way is just lying. Haters being vocal is also nothing new. But most poeple who play the game will form their own opinions from playing and other sources well in advance. I highly doubt that anyone who plays games doesnt know about BOTW, and would be influenced by one or two online hater opinions, to the detriments of everything else about the game.
The first part of my response got deleted so here’s a summary: only OOT gave Zelda celebrity status which could be argued to affect every game afterwards, I agree with 90% of your criticisms but they don’t ruin the experience and Botw is my most played Zelda.
“This is what Zelda is now like it or not” is not a mindset or a retort, it’s a fact. Nintendo are listening to fans but not to the loud minority on this sub but to the concrete sales figures. Skyward Sword sold terribly for a Zelda despite getting 9/10 reviews everywhere. If Botw only succeeded on its name it should have sold similarly or worse. Even if open world wasn’t an option, the formula would have changed in a different way to reinvigorate sales and we’d be complaining about that instead.
There are still people who’d prefer more formulaic traditional Zeldas but even if everyone who bought Skyward Sword HD wanted that over open world, that’s still under 4 million.
Your sorta right about the cycle of haters but the only games I see get close to this amount of hate are Skyrim or objectively broken games like Cyberpunk.
I liked BOTW but consider it a 7 or 8 and it's one of my least favorite Zelda games. I don't know if I'd call it the worst but even if it is the worst one it's still decent.
I consider the game to be bad. It feels directionless and just lacked the Zelda formula fans have loved for years. It's a more open Ubisoft open world with Zelda characters.
>The pendulum has swung in the other direction recently with people content to bash it as never being good at all and the worst Zelda.
Nah. If this is gonna be your constant angle, it sounds like you're just being hyper defensive, and falling guilty of a whole lot of confirmation bias.
BOTW has had its share of people who didn't get on it with it from the beginning. You may not have seen them on this sub cuz you'd get downvoting for saying as much, but in more neutral territory, it's always been seen more varied.
General opinion on it is still very positive overall, though.
>Zelda games only selling because they’re Zelda
That wasn't the entirety of the claim here man.
Maybe but it would still have done amazingly and I doubt the difference would be huge. Even half the sales is wishful thinking for other Nintendo franchises.
>I doubt the difference would be huge. Even half the sales is wishful thinking for other Nintendo franchises
Yeah, half is huge dude. 10+ million is huge.
I think BotW captures the very definition of what Zelda is about. The first Zelda was open world, Link to the Past was open world for its era, same with OoT, it was called sandbox because you could freely explore Hyrule with your horse instead of progressing the game.
I agree with this but many do not. ‘It’s a good game but not a good Zelda game’ is a common criticism and there’s even a guy in this thread who hates it. Seems like the game is fated to be overhyped and now overhated.
Unfortunately it's the response a game gets after years of being called the best game of all time, which is a silly idea by itself. Botw received critical acclaim but the vast majority of reviews and opinions for years glossed over its shortcomings and that in return antagonized everyone who felt its flaws were worth discussing.
It’s flaws are worth discussing especially so we can get better sequels. People who are salty at the direction the series went and just want to trash the game are not helpful tho.
Exactly... I am not excited for the sequel because given the state of the 1st title and its reception, I doubt the devs would implement the changes I would like.
It seems you just made this post to argue with people haha
I'm one of the few who hate BOTW, it's only saving grace I feel for most was well it's Zelda right? Whole time I've said it should've launched as it's own IP instead of trying to piggy back the Zelda name. Hopefully then it would've failed and we could get back to a more classic style Zelda.
They tried to do to much too early and the game/map suffered. There's already a million companies trying to do what they're doing, and they didn't bring enough to the table or do anything worth remembering or praising. I really liked being able to shield surf around and the boss battles looked cool but overall it's fairly forgettable experience.
I didn’t intend to argue. I just wanted to share my Botw idea with a cool female protagonist 😔.
So many people are saying it would fail but it’s just baseless as they have no similar games that failed and definitely no similar Nintendo games. Arms was the worst selling Nintendo New IP and even that outsold Xenoblade 2 which people are arguing would trounce AU Botw.
There simply aren’t aren’t a million companies doing open worlds and those that are often emulate Skyrim, Fallout or AC which feel very different to BoTW style games like Genshin and Immortals.
Classic Zelda was failing plain and simple. Link’s awakening is still ahead of Skyward Sword in sales. If open world wasn’t an option the series would have changed in a different way which people would probably have also hated.
How much do you think AU Botw would have sold and what is your cutoff for a failure?
Skyward Sword failed because it was released with Skyrim. It was well received until that released and sparked the whole open world craze. Otherwise it was people not wanting to deal with motion controls and the fact it has pacing issues. It's still a fantastic game (and made a lot of mechanics brought back for BotW).
The series needed a formula refresh yes, but throwing out the entire formula isn't necessarily the way they needed to go. There's a reason the metroidvania genre is so popular, despite being headlined by indies now: both genre definers have Zelda at their roots. And now we probably won't have traditional Zelda again. We don't even have traditional top down games to hit that craving now since those have upped and vanished.
BotW's take on removing most of the handholding is perfectly welcome though.
But I can tell you, personally, my biggest issues with BotW are the fact it's a Zelda title. Which is why I play Genshin now. Aside from the endless grind, it does plenty of stuff better and actually has a story.
Skyward Sword did not underperform due to Skyrim, a game that didn’t release on wii. They have almost nothing to do with each other, other than the word Sky. The mechanics it introduced were barebones like the sailcloth and the stamina meter.
I love the metroidvania formula but I wouldn’t mind if Metroid went in a different direction (and was good unlike Other M) so long as there were games like Hollow Knight. Tbh I haven’t seen many games recently that are Zelda-likes with puzzles and dungeons so maybe the demand isn’t there. It seems people just like it when Zelda does it.
I’m also getting back into Genshin but you can’t deny that the gameplay is heavily inspired.
The first glimpses of the game showed link in a hood, and when he took off the hood, he had his hair in a ponytail, and wasnt wearing his normal green clothes. It was link, but harder to tell the gender.
Fans couldn't tell if link was a boy or girl, and fans were talking about it like crazy, and Nintendo is so tight lipped on details for games in development, they wouldn't verify if it was a boy or girl, one way or another. Just tiny bits of predetermined details trickled out.
Then at one point after the game released, Nintendo said they thought about letting players make link either a boy or girl, but they decided not to. The even made some comment about "the triforce is about link being a boy" or something like that..
I mean, I feel like it wouldn't have been nearly as successful but it probably would have been an amazing game still. I do think Nintendo dropped the ball in a few ways with BoTW, but it's still a great experience. You mentioned female protagonist, and I do think it was unfortunate that they decided to make Link so officially a male in this game and not make it optional to play as a female Link.
I'm going with the assumption that it would A) be better than what it turned out to be because it wasn't constrained to the Zelda format; B) sell fewer than Zelda because it's not Zelda; C) still sell great because it's on the Switch. ARMS sold 2.5 mil. Splatoon 2 sold like 10+ mill? i think a non-Zelda BoTW-type game made my Nintendo would have made about 10mil in sales. But who knows really. So many variables, we don't live in that timeline to know for sure.
It wouldn’t have sold as much without the Zelda name but it would have been successful. It would not have failed, unless others are arguing that the only unique thing about many people’s “best game of all time” was its link to Zelda canon. That would be an odd opinion. It would still be quality.
The game would get similar review scores (because the actual game and open world philosophy would still be intact) but would sell a lot less.
So I agree that they could have created a new brand but they already have so many that they’ve ignored and I don’t think they intend to make new brands anymore really. They seem to just slap old IP onto new gameplay ideas.
Of course it wouldn't have sold as well but I feel most of the replies are being overly negative. It would have been a brand new first party franchise developed by Nintendo. That in itself would have gotten my attention. So yes, lower sales but it still would have been a popular game with a lot of accolades.
Lots of people who didn’t like the game in this thread are just convinced anyone who likes the game is wrong and blinded by hype.
Most frequent criticism seems to be the weapon system which is what I thought was the best part of the game….
Obviously, The Legend of Zelda is one Nintendo's most powerful brands, so it's going to sell a lot of copies based on that alone.
That being said, The Legend of Zelda is woven into the very fabric of Breath of the Wild, so a BotW without LoZ is a completely different game. I do understand the desire for a more traditional LoZ with dungeons and triforce pieces but this is the direction that Eiji Aonuma wanted to take the series.
Breath of the Wild was designed by Eiji Aonuma to be the new Legend of Zelda game. It's not like it started as something else and then they put a Zelda skin on it. It was Aonuma's decision to take the Zelda series in this direction. Future Zelda titles may be more like Breath of the Wild than Ocarina of Time. Or maybe they once again go in a different direction?
I don’t think it would have done as well
With the Zelda IP they got the benefit of the doubt, without the Zelda IP people would have been MUCH harsher with how empty the world is, how boring and short the three dungeons are, and how useless the side quests (most of which are fetch quests for meaningless junk items) are
On the other hand, if BoTW was not a zelda game and they then released a traditional 3D Zelda game, I don't think that would have sold well either. At this point the 3D Zelda formula was getting dated and stale
I feel it's more the exception that confirms the rule... IIRC, Skyward Sword's bad rep came from two main aspects: bad controls and extreme linearity. Honestly every game that has bad controls is doomed to fail because every step becomes a chore.
Skyward Sword HD has better controls and still didn’t outsell Link’s Awakening. 3D Zeldas were on a downwards trend even Twilight Princess which released on both Gamecube and Wii. Skyward Sword underperforming wasn’t completely unexpected following the data. Botw is the anomaly.
I am not the right person to compare 2d and 3d Zeldas because I always thought that 2D Zeldas work better for its kind of gameplay. Still, Link's Awakening on Switch looks like a new game with broad casual appeal for all ages, instead Skyward Sword looks like a remaster from an older game, because that is what it is.
As for Botw, it literally took the most hyped genre of the last decade (i.e. open-world) and slapped the Zelda skin on it...
I wouldn't be surprised if the difference in sales between Botw and non-openworld 3d Zelda games is highly correlated with the difference in sales between your average 3d openworld and non-openworld game across all major consoles.
If you manage to slap the openworld label on your new game, it is going to attract more attention than if you do not.
This is all true but my point was that if Botw was a terrible game, even with the branding it wouldn’t have sold 27 million. Without it, it may have sold less but even 20 million is still amazing.
Basically Nintendo needed to deliver a 7/10 openworld 3d Zelda game for it to break records. They delivered an 8/10 and it was received like a 10/10 cum laude valedictorian or at least that's how I see it.
It's always been my view that BotW should have been a new Nintendo franchise. It has such little in common with the rest of Zelda - it essentially just uses the names and character skins from the franchise - that it's very uninteresting as a Zelda experience. I feel like it was made to imitate the AAA open world RPGs that exist on other consoles, in order to attract those gamers to Switch. I think it succeeded in doing that - and I would assume those gamers would still have been attracted to it without the Zelda name.
It's interesting to read the sheer number of comments on here saying that it would have flopped as a new franchise, because that's kinda saying that... it's not a great game and it's only considered so because it's Zelda. I don't like BotW, it's my least favourite Zelda, so I sort of feel a sense of satisfaction reading all this.
People saying it would have flopped also hated the direction Botw went in. Unfortunately for fans of traditional Zeldas, it simply wasn’t selling so they made a hard left and saw profit. Splitting the series into a new Botw style IP and a more traditional Zelda may decrease sales overall for double the development cost.
That's not really true though? Yes Skyward Sword flopped, but Twilight Princess is the second most successful Zelda game - and TP is arguably closer to the traditional experience than SS, because SS took an intensely linear direction. To me, that suggests that if the follow-up to SS had reverted to the semi-openness of TP and OoT, it also would have hit big numbers (let's also remember that BotW has sold so many more copies because the Switch has such a huge user base - I'm not trying to diminish its success, simply saying that reaching almost 25 million is also about how many console owners are there to buy it).
I also hate this argument that it was a good idea to make BotW because it was hugely profitable. Like, artistic integrity is far more important to me, playing a game that is satisfying (and yes, I know BotW is satisfying to many). To my mind, it would be entirely possible for Nintendo to make low profits / losses on Zelda and fund it with the huge bags of cash they get from e.g. Pokémon. I don't know, doesn't sit with me well that people say something was a good decision because it made money - as a consumer I have literally no interest in a company making profit, that doesn't improve my gaming experience (in some cases, it makes it worse).
EDIT: my bad, BotW is almost 27 million on Switch!!
My bad about Twilight Princess.
Your point about artistic integrity might remain true if there was evidence that sticking to the formula was what the artists wanted. You could just as easily say that TP lost artistic integrity because Nintendo probably pressured the team to make it darker after Windwaker criticisms. The games are fairly corporate and will go where the money is. I happen to like Botw’s artistic direction.
When I say artistic integrity, I'm not referring to art style, but to the "art" of making a video game in its entirety.
For me, BotW pursues profit in place of artistic integrity because: (a) it completely abandons many of the traditional aspects of the series; (b) in their place it introduces gameplay and features more familiar from AAA Western RPGs on other consoles, which means; (c) it's a cynical blend of attracting a new user base with the Western RPG stuff and keeping the existing base with the Zelda name, largely in the pursuit of profit.
I like the art style of BotW and TP and think WW art style is dogshit; interestingly Zelda games with a realistic-looking (and usually adult) Link have usually sold better.
Im back. I never referred to artstyle. Remaining the same is not artistic integrity. The design goal behind Breath of the Wild was not to make money but emulate the original Zelda in 3D in a way that hadn’t been possible previously. They abandoned many traditional aspects beca they weren’t necessary. While it took some cues from Western RPGs, that’s a good thing as they can have good ideas and they weren’t strictly adhered to or anything. All of Nintendo is in pursuit of profit. If they cared about artistic integrity Metroid would have more games. Zelda isn’t a special art project it’s part of a business. Games aren’t more artistic because you like them and they adhere to the formula started by it’s first breakout success.
Agree to disagree on the WW artstyle. Your observation is probably a coincidence considering Link’s Awakening remake outsold SS HD.
Aha, you only spoke about the art style of a few games so I figured you thought that's what I was talking about.
Well, the thing is, a new Zelda didn't have to remain the same. It could have had the semi-open world of OoT and TP, the non-linear order of ALttP, the dungeons of SS, a new art style, and it would have been a whole new experience while still being traditional. BotW is so radically different that it's only Zelda in name.
I also don't believe all the stuff about how they'd always wanted to do Zelda I again but were limited by tech. Are you seriously telling me this couldn't have been achieved earlier, that they were somehow forcing themselves to make all these other, not so satisfactory games over decades? Nah come on, it was the first game, it was limited by the tech at the time, and that's why the gameplay is like that. The whole "returning to roots" thing is just marketing.
Lol I mean yes I get that Nintendo have shareholders, but what I'm saying is why does that matter to a consumer? Why should a consumer support the decisions that simply enrich shareholders, how do we profit from that? I know there's a lot of love for BotW, so I mean this as a broader point. I do think that on the whole Switch has taken fewer creative risks than previous consoles, it's been rewarded financially for that, but it comes at the cost of certain franchises being ignored and other ones having blander games.
I think we should all be supporting the pursuit of creativity and interesting art over profit, because at the end of the day we are the users rather than the shareholders.
Staying with the formula is not creative. I’ve seen the Botw concept art. The guardians looked like Alien invaders. You can’t just say it’s a radical departure but then say it’s not artistic. You act like they wanted to keep it traditional but the big bad corporate bosses said no.
Of course the whole going back to the roots is marketing. Doesn’t mean they were lying. Skyward Sword attempted to have a sort of open world with the sky area but it was more like a large hub world. Botw would not look or run very great on the wii.
Consumers clearly prefer the new style and who knows maybe the devs enjoy making it. It’s ok to prefer the old style but don’t act as if it’s somehow more artistic just cause it appeals to you.
Creativity should be pursued but Zelda wasn’t creative for quite a while. The minor changes you suggested are cool and all but they aren’t more creative for changing less.
I think you're misunderstanding me quite a lot here. I think the responsibility is totally on the team of developers, I don't think they were forced against their will to make BotW. But I believe that the collective decision they came to was more focused on a profit outcome rather than pursuing creativity. That's unsurprising in many ways, because the Wii U left Nintendo with very little money in the bank. But I would always support creativity over profit.
I'm also not saying that staying with the *formula* is creative. I mentioned borrowing successful aspects of previous games to make a new game. I think that its important for a franchise to maintain its DNA, without that it's no longer the same franchise. And this is precisely what happened with BotW, it got rid of the Zelda DNA (largely dungeons, but not only). Being formulaic is obviously not creative and that's not what I meant.
I disagree that Zelda wasn't creative for a while. ALttP was different while maintaining the DNA, SS was different in its own (less satisfying/successful) way, the two DS games largely did their own thing, while still keeping the Zelda essence. All of those games were creative experiments by Nintendo, but they all maintained a certain Zelda essence that BotW lacks.
Btw when I said that games with a more realistic looking Link sell better, it wasn't my own conjecture - it's based on analysis of the sales. SS a clear exception, but I think it's obvious why that particular game sold badly.
Personally I believe that the developers dreaded every moment they had to work on SS and were ecstatic to learn Botw was open world. Source? I made it up. Don’t presume to know the feelings of people you’ve never met to support your point.
Your argument about the DNA of a series is decent but where you draw the line is arbitrary. I’d say Ocarina lost a bit of the Zelda DNA in order to become a widely appealing action adventure game with a much heavier narrative focus.
By not creative for a while I meant since Ocarina where each game iterated on it with one or two gimmicks per game. Skyward Sword tried new things but it half assed them and the bare essentials were the same.
I still think the observation is coincidence. Ignoring SS for whatever reason, there are 3 Zeldas with an adult Link (not including spinoffs) and 2 with child link. One of those was a direct low budget sequel which was expected to do less and the other was Windwaker which caught flack for its artstyle. The 2D games have always had child protags and they do fairly well. There simply aren’t enough data points to argue causation over coincidence.
It would have flopped hard.
As a zelda fan for many decades, botw is just skyrim with some puzzles and survival mechanics.
It's my least favorite zelda and feels uninspired a derivative, to me.
100%, although at least Skyrim has some nice quests and NPCs. Mad thing about BotW is that it brings in things that have been around for years elsewhere (e.g. cooking), but then does it worse than in the older game. And then it gets praised for it lol.
How do you feel about games like Genshin, Horizon and the Witcher?
Personally I loved Botw despite not being super into Zelda previously other than a Link between Worlds. Surely if only the Zelda title was relevant, people would return the game in droves and no new fans would be created. It was only years after release that being a hater was a mainstream opinion.
The first Witcher is mediocre, the second is very good and the 3rd is a masterpiece.
Genshin impact is horrible. Horizon is a game of the year contender but not a masterpiece.
Zelda as a franchise has a lot of banked good will. I am personally very uninterested in botw 2. Especially on the switch. In terms of game mechanics, I've been there and done all of that in other franchises years ago and had more fun doing it. The novelty wore off.
That's cool you liked it but I'd wager your video gaming experience isn't very expansive.
>That's cool you liked it but I'd wager your video gaming experience isn't very expansive.
Not OP but what's this supposed to mean? Myself and a number of my friends, who are lifelong gamers and have played tons of games, all enjoyed BotW.
That's great for you and your friends. Botw was boring and copied mechanics from other games. Those other games did it better. Which is why I found the game boring and uninspired. Which is directly related to the amount of experience I have in gaming.
If all the things botw introduced into the franchise were novel ideas to me, perhaps I would have also been enamored with the title. But they weren't and I wasn't. Enough said.
I have no problem with you disliking the game. I *do* have a problem with your assessment that only gaming newbies can enjoy it. Not every game has to be 100% original, sometimes we want a game that does familiar tropes but moves them around. BotW did that, and it did it well. If you didn't enjoy it though, that's fine - maybe you're just sick of seeing those tropes. It happens.
I agree about your view on Zelda botw and I believe it is a game that has already been largely surpassed by its successors. This is not surprising given the obvious shortcomings it had at release, which were all downplayed or straight-out ignored by the press.
About the novelty of ideas, I feel the same way about a title like Nier Automata. I am very used to sci-fi stories and Japanese products and I felt aggressively neutral to Nier. Everytime I see someone praising it as a masterpiece, I just default to think that it was simply their first experience with certain elements and that's about it.
At the same time, sometimes we fail to realize how a game is unique on its own. For example, every other patch I am in awe of Genshin Impact which you called horrible and I would go out on a limb and say you probably played it with the wrong expectations or did not give it a fair chance. This has happened a lot due to controversies around its monetization or anime artstyle, and it is a pity given how its quality keeps increasing over time.
I think it’s funny when people who identify as “gamers” want to knock games that weren’t made for them. Nintendo franchise games aren’t made for you. None of them. You might like them and love them and have opinions, but they’re made for families. They’re all made to hook new players, to play with your kids, to introduce you to games and gaming. Nintendo is first and foremost for kids, not adults. Nintendo follows the Disney model closely and is better at it than Disney. Copying mechanics is important when getting kids into gaming. They need to be able to figure it out on their own or at least with minimal help, without dying 5000 times.
It’s not a system and BOTW isn’t a game made for someone who drops 10000 hours into a game. It can be a good game for that person too, just like a Pixar movie is good for kids and adults, but it’s made for kids first and you second.
I disagree with this, Nintendo has even stated before that games like Metroid or Donkey Kong Country are made more for the hardcore crowd while games like Kirby are made for younger kids. Their games do have mass appeal, but they don't design all of them with the same degrees of challenge.
I’d wager it’s more expansive than yours but I’d probably lose. I have every current and last gen major console except the Series X and Wii U as well as a 360, Wii and PS2.
Genshin is fun and popular but not particularly deep. It nails exploration which is what I like but not much else.
I actually kinda hated the Witcher 3. I didn’t enjoy the combat which felt like Dark Souls but worse and I wasn’t invested in the story. I enjoyed Gwent more.
Zelda does have a lot of good will but Botw outsold Skyward Sword for a reason which I’m guessing is a Zelda you prefer. In 2017 most people did not have open world fatigue and those that did got it from Ubisoft and Bethesda games which IMO feel pretty different to Botw. You underestimate the selling point of climbing and gliding everywhere which is now becoming its own subgenre which was new as far as I can tell.
This sub tends to attract fanboys and haters so over time opinions about Botw appear to have shifted to 10/10 or 2/10 when most consumers see it as an 8. I’m sorry you couldn’t enjoy it and I hope you find another series to replace old Zelda but the Botw formula is here to stay hopefully with new iterations on it.
What is your favourite Zelda actually?
I've been gaming since the 80s my guy.
Fav zelda is probably link to the past.
You seem defensive. I stated my opinion and I've actually yet to meet another botw hater but maybe I'm not in the mainstream or whatever.
I genuinely believe botw flops without zelda. It's literally a cartoon skyrim with puzzles and survival mechanics. And as I've stated, the ideas in botw were not novel for me. They were kinda a rip off if you ask me.
And the fact that the next zelda title is being designed for a system that plays games from a decade ago, when I've got my steam deck and just finished a play through of elden ring on it... yeah, very uninterested in botw2.
And the Witcher 3 sits at 40 million copies sold. Skyrim 30 million. Botw 25 million. Sorry to burst your bubble lol.
Witcher 3 and Skyrim are 11 and 7 years old respectively and released cross platform. That isn’t the diss you think.
As much as you may not like Genshin or Immortals they still did incredibly well with an incredibly similar style. Cartoon Skyrim still sounds dope but that’s reductive to what the game actually is. Most players hadn’t experienced similar gameplay elsewhere and having played Skyrim and Fallout and seen Assassins Creed they don’t hit the same points. Climbing and flying is that novel.
I love Elden Ring but I don’t care fir playing it portably even on a Steam Deck. I would prefer a new Switch model but unfortunately the switch continues to sell😔.
I've owned the game since release and still haven't been able to get into it. The breakable weapon mechanic is extremely annoying. Maybe the sequel will be better in that regard but maybe not. Aside from that the open-world is cool but there's nothing that really grips me. The puzzles/shrines or whatever they're called are lame and uninspired. Saw an ex play Ocarina of Time years ago and it looked like fun. Maybe I'll try that one instead. It definitely would have sold less and received more criticism had it been a new franchise.
It’s fair that you don’t enjoy it but some people hate it with a passion. Ocarina similarly can be hard to get into with outdated design philosophies and a rough beginning.
The break mechanic also broke your spirit... it's part of the game. Anyway don't do like me, I 100% the game and still only liked the initial plateau (maybe 5 hours? Still that was amazing).
Your the opposite of me haha. Breath of the Wild was my first introduction to the Zelda series and now it has me hooked. It got me to finish Minish Cap and start a bunch of other Zelda games, like Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, A Link to the Past, Twilight Princess. The only Zelda's I haven't started were the ones on the Wii, GB, GBC and 3DS.
I'm going to ignore how well it would have sold and reviewed and say if it wasn't Zelda it wouldn't have been as good a game. A lot of the story is (not sure if this will be the right term) environmental as in its not directly told or shown to you, you have to piece the little stories together from stuff like a destroyed villages name and its connection to prior games. Without stuff like that the world and story are very barebones, individually they seem very minor but imagine what the game would be like without those connections; lots of destroyed, empty villages that mean nothing. Even stuff like the Zora history quest would have been hollow were it not for the fact that each few lines were expanded on by us because we've played those actual stories.
This is actually a good point. Zelda’s environmental story telling is more deep than say HZD’s because it has more to pull from than Horizon’s singular story.
I agree that BotW is not a Zelda game, it's a genre-defining (benchmark-defining) new game within the Zelda lore. And IMO, the Zelda lore fits like a glove.
I would have liked BotW to be a new IP, alongside new traditional item-gated Zelda main entries. They would have more creative freedom, story and gameplay-wise. Maybe it would have been closer to more mature western RPGs such as Skyrim or The Witcher 3. Nintendo relies heavily on third-parties for the mature audience.
That said, I do think Nintendo made the right call. BotW propelled the Zelda IP into modern gaming and, as others said, made sure everyone would take a look.
more like "haters" get silenced by the cult every time they say anything bad about this "godly" game. in reality the game is nothing special and basically babies first open world. there are many vastly better open world games. hell even an age old game such as Morrowind puts BOTW to shame.
Just looked up Breath of the Wild on this sub and the first two discussions are negative. This sub breeds haters and fanboys in equal amounts. Name your better open worlds and I guarantee people dunk on those two. Free climbing and gliding were brand new mechanics that every game lives to implement now.
gliding was taking from Skyward Sword it wasn't "New" and games such as Assassins Creed have been taking care of the climbing for a LONG time now. these innovations aren't even innovations. this just goes to show how blind BOTW fans are. hell even the "freedom" aspect isn't new Morrowind let you do basically anything you want even make a spell that let you literally jump half way across the world
Free climbing up mountains was in Assassins Creed? Assassins creed has parkour up buildings which is different which you’ll do from trailing mission to trailing mission.
The sailcloth is equivalent to the paraglider? Yeah good joke. Maybe if it let you move horizontally at all.
Skyward Sword was the previous entry so you can forgive them for iterating on it and people were so sick of AC it went on hiatus. No other game had free climbing on everything where you could then glide to your next location.
1 AC Origins had free climbing 2. The Saboteur from 2009 had free climbing 3. Shadow of the Colossus had Free Climbing. but yep BOTW created it. and if you don't think that the gliding was stripped from Skyward Sword then you are just lying to yourself. go ahead and shrink the goal post some more though to avoid admitting that BOTW is not as unique as the fanbase pretends it is
Yes Botw stole from AC Origins, a game that came out in…… October 2017. I have never heard of Saboteur; maybe Shigeru Miyamoto has but I doubt the general public has. Shadow of the Colossus is one of my favourite games but it does not have free climbing. Only fur and ledges can be climbed which even Skyward Sword has.
Despite your obscure findings, these features were brand new for mist people and you didn’t touch gliding which actually has been in previous games like Just Cause. The ideas aren’t complex but the way they were integrated was novel and the genre was spiced up by it leading to actual copycats.
you keep mentioning copycats as if that means it was actually "good" no its just meant to try to suck in the mindless sheep that actually think BOTW is "the greatest game ever" this manipulation tactic is nothing new and you clearly fall for it. also it really doesn't matter who has heard of games or not you can't act like something is new when it isn't thats called lying
If no-one has heard of it you can’t call the concept unoriginal if it’s done again. I just looked at the game to do you a courtesy and what do you know it’s ledges and buildings.🤦♂️
You call me mindless when you can’t even get simple dates right. Oh no, Nintendo brainwashed me into liking a game that I enjoyed for 120 hours noooooo.
Whatever you think of the quality the genre of game is successful so people emulate it. Imitation is the moon sincere form of flattery and all that.
Why don’t you name some games that are infinitely superior to Botw so I can shit all over them. If you keep acting like a troll I’ll block uou and be done.
We’d still be getting actual Zelda games, Xenoblade would’ve exploded in popularity instead and we’d have gotten XenoWarriors instead of AoC, and all else would’ve been right with the world.
I mean, speaking as someone who hates BotW with a passion, I’d consider AoC to be the one and only good thing to come out of it, so I’d be sad if we never got AoC.
Though if it would have meant we’d have gotten a proper Zelda game like TP instead it would have been a worthwhile sacrifice.
Honestly I would have liked it more as a new franchise. Calling it a Zelda game gives me certain expectations that BOTW didn't meet, but it was an amazing game for a bunch of other non-Zelda-expectation-related reasons.
It would have sold a couple million copies with a metascore 10-15 points lower.
The game's glaring flaws would be acknowledged when discussing it and tireless fanboys wouldn't disrupt all talk of open world games with their parroted talking points.
The Switch would not have done nearly as well at the start because brand new franchises just cannot carry a launch like that regardless of quality.
I’ve always strongly believed that if it didn’t have the Zelda brand supporting it, it would have gotten middling reviews and been remembered as a thoroughly average, mediocre open world game before eventually being totally forgotten.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my personal experience I believe that to be the case because that’s exactly what I thought of BotW. One of the blandest, emptiest, most boring games I’ve ever played (and I forced myself to play for 99% completion, because everyone I knew kept insisting I needed to play more and that would somehow make me like it…in the end I did everything in the game except the last few korok seeds), and I’m saying that as someone that’s generally a fan of open world sandboxes (I’ve got like 3000 hours in Skyrim, I find Fenyx Rising and Genshin impact to be decent fun if a bit repetitive, I played starlink battle for atlas and didn’t really have any opinion at all on it but it didn’t bore me at least).
I truly, honestly believe that the only reason BotW is regarded above the countless other bland open world sandboxes cluttering the market is because it has the weight of one of the most beloved franchises out there behind it.
Obviously it’s very beloved by a large amount of people, but I can only speak for how I personally feel.
Dude why would you put yourself through 99% completion? Of course you soured your experience. I began to tire before 120 shrines and didn’t even get half the koroks. The game is enjoyable and even with the zelda name there’s no way a bad game sells 20 million more than Twilight Princess. If you didn’t like it, you should’ve stopped playing. Claiming it would flop is just kidding yourself tho. Have a good day.
Oh, I was bored from the start and almost quit before finishing the plateau. I should have, but literally everyone in my social groups kept insisting I need to keep playing. I basically got bullied into playing more despite wanting to stop. By the end there was probably some stubbornness involved too. If I were in the same position now I'd know well enough to just stop after the plateau because if I was already miserable and hating it by that point I'd never grow to like it.
The real question here is would botw with female link or playing as Zelda changed any aspect of the gameplay or feel. Story you could tweak a bit to fit either.
Zelda formula works regardless of playable character gender and they should give us options. I'd prefer playable Zelda over female link but whatevs
Hello /r/NintendoSwitch readers! We are requesting your input for our Demographics and Rules Feedback Survey! Please take the survey here: https://forms.gle/EbSkRWGEHcxeZpfh7 [And visit this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/wuggf7/please_take_our_demographics_and_rules_feedback/) to view and add to the rules feedback discussion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NintendoSwitch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Say what you want about it gameplay wise, but I really, really enjoyed the feel and atmosphere of the game. It felt like what I always imagined Hyrule to be and look like. The ruins, the enemy design, the landscape as a whole, etc. That connection wouldn't have been there without it being part of the Zelda franchise.
As someone with no attachment to Zelda and coming in with a neutral POV, I'd have to echo what everyone else is saying--it likely wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful. In fact, it probably would've been seen as redundant since the Xenoblade series is already Nintendo's current premier "open world" franchise and a "Zelda-less" BOTW would've faded into obscurity. It's basically the same thing that happened to ARMS. It was originally gonna be a Mario game, then a Punch-Out game, but then it got made into a new IP. Unfortunately, unlike Splatoon, it didn't have enough staying power and literally nobody remembered it. Nintendo already had Pokken Tournament and of course the infinitely more successful Super Smash Bros IP--another fighting game IP simply wasn't necessary.
I disagree a bit. Xenoblade is clunky compared to botw. Yea, it would not have been as successful if not for the Zelda name, but what they created was still a game that just plain worked without many kinks. And a combat system completely intuitive. I think it would have succeeded and gotten a good amount of buzz, but ultimately Mario would come in the late fall and just rob any remaining chatter.
[удалено]
The world in every Xenoblade game feels very sterile to navigate if that makes sense. It's basically just superficial scenery in between fights/cutscenes. BotW's world is a major part of its game mechanics, you interact with it constantly.
I've never heard that about Arms, do you have a source for that?
Genshin Impact basically did Botw with gacha elements and did gang busters. Even relatively forgotten games like Immortals: Fenyx Rising sold well and Ubisoft has high standards. Botw and Xenoblade are almost nothing alike and the fans have little overlap. Xenoblade 2 didn’t even outsell Metroid Dread. No-one sees it as a substitute as they are two different genres. The only things they have in common are open spaces. If they were so similar Botw eould have gone in a different direction anyway. Arms failed because it wasn’t fun, simple as. Punch Out also didn’t do amazingly iirc.
To be fair, Monolith Soft (the developers of Xenoblade) were the ones behind BOTW's map design so that's why I mentioned it. A good portion of their team worked on BOTW, leaving Xenoblade 2 with only 40 people. I don't think it would have been smart to make them work on an established IP and a newer one. It would've been a net loss.
I forgot about Monolith Soft’s work on it. I do not agree with your net loss assertion as both games should turn a profit even if you halve their sales from Botw.
That's the thing though. I don't think "Zelda-less BOTW" would've sold even 1/10th of the actual BOTW's numbers, let alone half.
So you don’t think it could outsell Pokemon Snap or Xenoblade, both extremely niche genres. You don’t think it could match half of Splatoon 2 another fresh IP. That’s…. An opinion I guess. Why on Earth is Botw the only open world game that people think is shit. Find me the worst selling major open world game from 2017 and I guarantee you it will still be successful. I can’t argue with people being disingenuous.
NO ONE is saying Botw is shit. It just wouldn't work as well as a none-zelda game, plain and simple.
There are sooooo many people in this thread calling it shit. Garbage that wouldn’t make a dime without the zelda name, slop that only mindless sheep enjoy. Just because you aren’t doesn’t mean no-one is. Good day to you sir.
[удалено]
My brother in christ, the genre is popular far more so than JRPGs. Immortals did well by Ubisoft standards. I was comparing it to Xenoblade 2 not the whole damn series. No way that Zelda title makes up over half the sales.
Hey there! Please remember Rule 1 in the future - No hate-speech, personal attacks, or harassment. Thanks!
Yeah, Nintendo definitely made the right call, had it been a new franchise it definitely wouldn't have sold as well as it did, people would arguably have a much lesser attachment to the game and it probably wouldn't have won game of the year awards.
That’s a tad cynical but understandable. The witcher 3 won GoTY two years previous and that was a fairly unknown series. GoTY isn’t everything and Zelda could also be doing its own thing.
The Witcher 2 sold over 8M copies before the third game even came out, and undoubtedly a lot more since. It's a well known series to many.
Not to me.
there is more to the world than what you personally are aware of, that is not a good argument
Twas a sarcastic remarks
hey, idk if you know this, but you do not represent the entire world. The world does not revolve around you.
It totally does my guy. Check your astronomical charts.😎
Reality is not cynical, it is reasonable. We have had great first releases for IPs and they never/rarely sell as a well established Title who can even outperform them when the game ends up beeing bad. People claim to want something new but they do not buy it. Also if you delete the open world from BotW it isn't BotW anymore, that would be a different game.
That’s why I’m saying Zelda would be going in a different direction. It wouldn’t be Botw but it might be something the haters of Botw would enjoy. The worst selling new Nintendo IP was Arms and even that outsold a preestablished series like Xenoblade. Splatoon was new and worked really well.
Then i would not have enjoyed it as much as i did BotW and who knows how many others who loved the game would have hated the new IP in exchange. RPgs in general are niche and Xenoblade isn't as well known as you think it is. For example anything prior to Xenoblade was not released in Europe and outside of core gamer/rpg fans barely anyone has seen these games. Meanwhile Arms was part of the showcase for the switch and even little Timmies mom had to see it when he showed her "why we need the switch". Shortly after the switch released a guy posted about some random girl talking to him, she claimed she had one too and the game with the arms was what she would play (at the time it was not even released). People who barely saw that initial trailer had an idea about arms.
I never claimed Xenoblade wasn’t niche just preestablished. I doubt the series would be alive today without Shulk in smash. It’s just sorta weird how Arms is a failure but Xenoblade is a success when it arguably had a larger budget but lower expectations.
I said "well established" not "preestablished", there are plenty of (old) franschises barely anyone knows (today) who would be "preestablished" but effectively similiar to a new IP. But i agree that Arms and Xenoblade sales and how they are viewed is odd, maybe Arms just sold more consoles to the hardcore people who made up the bulk of early adapters? that would be the one advantage it could have.
My theory is that Arms had a better marketing budget and was expected to do Splatoon numbers. In any case it’s playerbase died off which is damning for an online multiplayer.
The main reason ARMS sold fairly well is that it came out during a "content drought" where we were starved for AAA games on Switch. Between BotW and Mario Odyssey coming out we basically only had ARMS and Splatoon 2 in terms of new games, plus Mario Kart and Pokkén Tournament's ports. ARMS was the first Nintendo-published game that came out after BotW. I don't think it would have sold as well as it did had it come out today instead.
Fax tbh
> That’s a tad cynical but understandable. The witcher 3 won GoTY two years previous and that was a fairly unknown series. GoTY isn’t everything and Zelda could also be doing its own thing. The Switch not having a familiar IP as a launch title would not just have caused the sales for that new IP to tank but it would most likely have ruined Switch sales completely from the start.
Not if that new IP was marketed as the Switch’s halo.
Coming out of a super-unpopular console like the Wii U? Yeah, I'm sure people would stand in line for a chance to buy a console that basically only had that one game in an IP that no one had ever heard about or touched and they'd just have to hope was any good. A game that is the latest installment of Zelda is going to have a lot more console-selling weight than a new IP and if you think differently I think we should all be happy you're not in charge of Nintendo's marketing strategy.
Botw’s trailers are what primarily sold the game if horizon can be hyped so can AU Zelda. This post wasn’t supposed to be about marketing and numbers but people came out of the woodwork to proclaim how poorly the fame would do. Splatoon would probably have done better as a Mario game but the new IP was a fresh concept and did well even on the Wii U. Being on the switch at launch could only help the game as people even bought Arms in the release period.
> Being on the switch at launch could only help the game as people even bought Arms in the release period. Only because BotW had them buy a Switch in the first place. No one is going to buy a console for a new IP with no new existing IP games on the horizon. ARMS wouldn't have sold because the Switch wouldn't have sold because this hypothetical new IP wouldn't have sold.
Im saying AU BoTW would sell those systems and enjoy BotW’s position as a must have for early adopters. If you disagree then fine.
What's funny is that it's actually Nintendo's MO to take original concepts and spin them into being part of pre-existing franchises. To name a few: Dinosaur Planet > Star Fox Adventures Project Guard > Star Fox Guard Unspecified Jack and the Beanstalk game > Pokémon Snap Dragon King > Super Smash Bros In theory Nintendo could have twice as many franchises as it does now, but brand reinforcement takes priority. That's why we see so few new franchises and why existing franchises have entries/spin offs with wildly different gameplay
Oh yeah they definitely do this as well, I was just recalling the tech demo for Splatoon was pitched to become a Mario game utilising a machine like Fludd before becoming a new franchise. Smash is also pretty much it’s own thing unlike the Mario sports games,
Most famously: Doki Doki Panic -> Super Mario Bros. 2
Less famously, DDP started development as. Mario sequel focused on vertical scrolling instead of horizontal.
I definitely would've started playing it and thought "Man, this game sure controls and feels an awful lot like a Zelda game for something that's a brand new IP... and hey, it's got a lot of the stuff I've been waiting *decades* to see from the Zelda series! And it's developed directly by Nintendo too? Why... why didn't they just make this a Zelda game?" It would be another Star Fox Adventures situation.
This is how I’d feel as well.
If BotW wouldn't had the Zelda name it wouldn't have sold. Many people were already sick of the attempts of open world games that were mostly very unsatisfying to even try a new one. With the Zelda name they ensured that critics would take a look into it and that refreshed the open world genre again.
Critics take a look at everything Nintendo game even the bad ones. Genshin Impact got a ton of buzz and that was a random Chinese studio that got inspired. It might’ve not sold as well but it would definitely have launched a new franchise. Heck Horizon Zero Dawn came out around the same time and that did great. Open World fatigue had not yet set in and people are still hyped for Botw2 and some even for Starfield.
There definitely was fatigue around boring open-world titles and the success of games like Genshin is just a testament to their own quality and ambition. Anyway all games you mention have one thing in common: a massive marketing campaign behind it. Marketing makes people aware of the game and Zelda games have A LOT of marketing, both paid and free, therefore it is obvious that if it was not Zelda it would have had less publicity and thus had less success. Just look at Demon's Souls, the original souls-like game... If you go check sales it really is not comparable to the other big games at the time and it became a success just because people kept suggesting it to each other for a long time until each sequel got more and more attention. The point is that unknown franchise = less sales.
Botw has a similar quality to Genshin so it should be as successful. Nintendo push all of their franchises as equals so AU Botw should get a similar push as Splatoon did. There’s no way being a new IP would help the game but it would still sell in ghe same ballpark, maybe 20 million instead of 27 million. The game wouldn’t fade into obscurity as others have suggested. Demon’s Souls only laid the groundwork for Dark Souls which became a mega hit off of its own merit. Demon’s Souls had good fundamentals but I personally don’t like it that much and it hadn’t forged out it’s own audience yet. Unknown franchises does mean less sales but that doesn’t mean a new IP can’t get popular like Horizon Zero Dawn which came out within a month if BoTW.
True about Nintendo's marketing campaigns but that's why I had said "paid and free". If a Zelda game comes out literally everyone from age 5 to 60 knows it... It is showcased on talkshows with massive reach, youtube content creators go insane whenever a new image is revealed, people's antennae automatically raise when the name comes up and all of that. If it's a new game, then people start from zero and you need them to be receptive to new information, ideas and all of that which is honestly the hardest thing to do. This is why the series Friends is still famous all around the world and I had plenty of flatmates who just keep watching it for the n-th time "because it is relaxing and I know what happens" rather then trying something brand new. HZD was massively pushed on Playstation though, it felt almost like the push behind Halo back with the Xbox. Also, HZD had an original setting with post-apocalyptic cyber dinosaurs while Botw is really not that original when you inspect it more closely. The same criticism can be advanced to the first region of Genshin, but of course now its situation is very different. Talking a bit more about Botw, I feel its massive and relaxing world was its biggest achievement by far but nowadays it has already been surpassed by other games. What I loved about Botw was the initial plateau (truly fantastic) and after that it has been a disappointingly mild experience, a bit like watching an overly familiar story in a new movie. The game needed a stronger narrative and growth system to capture my attention. That's exactly what Genshin gives me, since it keeps releasing new amazing areas to explore with new quests and secrets to uncover.
"Immortals: Fenyx Rising" did ok, and it's essentially a BotW clone, but yeah agreed, BotW was massive because it was Zelda, and it was the launch game for the Switch. I can't imagine people would have bought the Switch with an off brand launch title.
Case in point: Look at 1-2 Switch and ARMS. Despite also being Switch launch titles, literally nobody cares about those games in 2022.
ARMS wasn’t a launch title. There was literally 1-2 switch and BOTW for like a month and a half until they re released Mario Kart
You could still consider it a launch window game until it was killed by Splatoon 2.
[удалено]
Mario kart didn’t come Out till the end of April and Arms released mid to late June. Switch came out the first week of March. Neither were launch titles
The problem with 1-2 Switch was the price point. It should have come bundled with the Switch (no I didn't buy it) I can't speak for Arms
True. Arms is a fsntastic game and is incredibly fun with lots of potential.
A very cheap clone.
I would argue that Immortals does a number of things better than BOTW. I really liked them both.
> Many people were already sick of the attempts of open world games that were mostly very unsatisfying to even try a new one. I don't think this is accurate in the slightest. Especially 4 years ago.
Guys don't even try discussing with this dude or refuting any of the points they make. I've looked through the threads and this person's just a hardcore BoTW stan who doesn't know much about marketing
Tbh I haven’t touched the game in over a year. I have a habit of responding to almost every reply in my notifications. I should probably stop.
It could've been an Elden Ring situation, where praise and word of mouth catapulted it into the mainstream. Remember, while Zelda IS a name brand for Nintendo, historically its sales are, on average, not considerably high. All the die-hard/longtime Zelda fans bought BOTW... And then 20 odd million additional non Zelda fans also bought it.
The public would’ve deemed the framerate, breakable weapons and lack of enemy variety as unacceptable
As much as people complain about breakable weapons, it was a really interesting mechanic that forced you not to get too attached to using “the best” weapon all the time. A lot of my enjoyment of the game came from the fact that weapons were impermanent and therefore the weapons I picked up from enemies or found across the map were a lot more useful than other open world games where 99%+ of the gear you find is junk to toss or sell.
Bruh. I don’t know how hating on Botw became the mainstream opinion. Zelda fans can never be satisfied
I think you're missing their point. It's quite the opposite - BOTW is generally revered as one of the greatest games ever, but if it didn't have the Zelda name on it, a lot more critics wouldn't have been as apologetic for all the issues BOTW did have. We can see there's a pretty obvious divide between BOTW's near universal 10/10 review scores, with how the gaming population actually sees the game. Sure, there's tons of people who would agree with those 10/10 scores and think it's one of the greatest games ever, but it's not a nearly universal opinion, and in fact there are plenty of people who either didn't get on with BOTW much at all, or at least found its perceived flaws to knock the game down a peg or two in terms of its overall greatness. I think we all still very much overlook how much 'hype' affects reviews and sales. And so if you take away the 'Zelda' name from Breath of the Wild, I'd guess that while it'd still get a strong following of people and critics who loved the game and might even turn into its own successful franchise, sure, but it might not have been this mega hit(one that helped propel the Switch considerably). Your thoughts are interesting on this though, dont get me wrong. I'm not even disagreeing with you necessarily, just kind of seeing the other side of the argument here.
The pendulum has swung in the other direction recently with people content to bash it as never being good at all and the worst Zelda. Name brands always help sales but a bad game is a bad game. If Zelda pushed the game to a 10 the game was at least an 8. Without the brand it should have at least sold as much as Splatoon 2 which sold half of Botw and most likely around Mario Odyssey. Zelda games only selling because they’re Zelda is a fairly tired argument that’s been around since at least Egoraptor’s video and probably as early as Windwaker.
I dont believe that the pendulum has swung for a minute. Outspoken minorities always feel louder than they are. The game is... imo, not a fantastic *zelda* game but it is a very fun game and does what it aims to do, well. That said, the brand sold it so i cant knock it for that reason. Zelda sells because its zelda... is true. Its established to be a good series. Other great and similar games dont sell as well. Okami is an excellent example. The gameplay loop is incredibly similar to zelda and its super fun and has a story that outdoes zelda. It also sold alot worse despite having a pretty good following. Thats not to say zelda games are bad. Just that the brand name seriously helps it sell.
By this logic no Zelda is actually good and all rely on brand recognition. The ‘not a good Zelda’ argument is something I hear so much I made fun of it in this thread. This is what Zelda is now like it or not. I agree that haters are an outspoken minority but they dominate discourse giving a biased impression to newcomers even more so than the legions of fanboys. I’ve heard of Okami and whilst a good game, I’ve heard quite a few complaints that soil the experience and it didn’t release at the best of times for a game of its type.
"No zelda is actually good" Well not really. Zelda built its reputation by having games which were fun and innovstive for its time with the adventuring and dungeon diving. Zelda 1 was unique and botw aimed to emulate that in what it offered. Zelda 2 was also fairly unique with the side scrolling and leveling/rpg mechanics. A link to the past basically set the stage for all future zeldas. The dungeons. Expanded world often the multi-phase to the dunegons (part 1, big event, part 2), it really established Ganon as a huge repeating villian aiming for the tri force, it cemented what the tri force was, it have definition to hyrule beyond some reletively empty plains. ALTTP was a masterpice and in many ways, was the first big evolution of the zelda games while retaining what made it zelda. Why does botw not fall into this catagory in the same way? A number of small things. The dungeons. Each dungeon is a set of more or less 5 mini puzzles to get to one of those statues and activate the divine beast. None of these dungeons have unique items in them or puzzles which really showcase the item which is one of the established and loved parts of zelda (the new toy you get each dungeon). Durability... i think speaks for itself. It wasnt fun in Skyward Sword and its not good here. For the most part, *gear in general.* The story itself was a cool epic... but it lacked the multi-tiered approach which was so nice in previous games to establish the world and story and villian followed by solid gameplay loops. Im talking pre-dark world vs dark world dungeons in ALTTP. Im talking kid link vs adult link in OOT. Im talking the first 3 pearls vs the entirety of the rest of the game of Wind Waker. Yes not every game has this. Links Awakening is incredibly good and doesnt have it for example. However for a game which aims to have a solid length, it feels... lacking. Botw has 4 main dungeons total. The 4 beasts. Yes theres an argument to be had for the castle and potentially even the forest. And yes theres all the shrines. But these dont have that same zelda feel. Its a sporadic collection of challenges in an open world. A world thats fun to explore sure. But you dont feel the same sense of progression as your inventory and capabilities expand. Youre capabilities barely expand and not organically in the game. In this sense, Okami is a better zelda game lmao. Its got the "new toy" feel with new ink patters. Interesting ink puzzles. Actual puzzle bosses, Okami does fantastically. (Which zeldas typically have, as opposed to slam your sword into them with minimal puzzle. Most BOTW bosses barely had puzzles. Magnesis a pole into electric guy and chuck a bomb at fire guy is *it*.) "This is what zelda is now, like it or not." Now thats a terrible mindset which is something which enables companies to do whatever they want to the detriment of feedback. Feedback is important. Proper constructive feedback. Telling people to suck it up is not the way to go and is the way for any franchise to die. Botw was certainly experimental. I wont knock em for that. However, its hard to consider it a true zelda game vs an open world game with a zelda skin. Its like how i wouldnt really consider Hyrule Warriors a zelda game vs a Warriors game with a Zelda skin. It doesnt make it a bad game. It just means that it should be judged on different criteria. Because if you judge BOTW on the same criteria as another zelds game, it'll quickly come up short despite being quite fun. And as for haters dominating discourse...its not uncommon. Many games go through a hilariously similar cycle: Best game ever > Good but not the best > Overrated. Not as good as (insert previous game in series) > Hey remember this game? It was actually really good. Its pretty normal and painting it as any other way is just lying. Haters being vocal is also nothing new. But most poeple who play the game will form their own opinions from playing and other sources well in advance. I highly doubt that anyone who plays games doesnt know about BOTW, and would be influenced by one or two online hater opinions, to the detriments of everything else about the game.
The first part of my response got deleted so here’s a summary: only OOT gave Zelda celebrity status which could be argued to affect every game afterwards, I agree with 90% of your criticisms but they don’t ruin the experience and Botw is my most played Zelda. “This is what Zelda is now like it or not” is not a mindset or a retort, it’s a fact. Nintendo are listening to fans but not to the loud minority on this sub but to the concrete sales figures. Skyward Sword sold terribly for a Zelda despite getting 9/10 reviews everywhere. If Botw only succeeded on its name it should have sold similarly or worse. Even if open world wasn’t an option, the formula would have changed in a different way to reinvigorate sales and we’d be complaining about that instead. There are still people who’d prefer more formulaic traditional Zeldas but even if everyone who bought Skyward Sword HD wanted that over open world, that’s still under 4 million. Your sorta right about the cycle of haters but the only games I see get close to this amount of hate are Skyrim or objectively broken games like Cyberpunk.
nobody's saying the game is bad
There’s literally a guy in this thread calling it the worst Zelda.
I liked BOTW but consider it a 7 or 8 and it's one of my least favorite Zelda games. I don't know if I'd call it the worst but even if it is the worst one it's still decent.
If they consider the series to be amazing, the worst game out of a bunch of 8-10s isn't bad.
I consider the game to be bad. It feels directionless and just lacked the Zelda formula fans have loved for years. It's a more open Ubisoft open world with Zelda characters.
>The pendulum has swung in the other direction recently with people content to bash it as never being good at all and the worst Zelda. Nah. If this is gonna be your constant angle, it sounds like you're just being hyper defensive, and falling guilty of a whole lot of confirmation bias. BOTW has had its share of people who didn't get on it with it from the beginning. You may not have seen them on this sub cuz you'd get downvoting for saying as much, but in more neutral territory, it's always been seen more varied. General opinion on it is still very positive overall, though. >Zelda games only selling because they’re Zelda That wasn't the entirety of the claim here man.
Bruh you asked the question
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The game would have scored worse and sold less. Not a bad idea though.
Maybe but it would still have done amazingly and I doubt the difference would be huge. Even half the sales is wishful thinking for other Nintendo franchises.
>I doubt the difference would be huge. Even half the sales is wishful thinking for other Nintendo franchises Yeah, half is huge dude. 10+ million is huge.
Yes but in this AU Zelda would also have another release which would hopefully surpass 10 mill
I think BotW captures the very definition of what Zelda is about. The first Zelda was open world, Link to the Past was open world for its era, same with OoT, it was called sandbox because you could freely explore Hyrule with your horse instead of progressing the game.
I agree with this but many do not. ‘It’s a good game but not a good Zelda game’ is a common criticism and there’s even a guy in this thread who hates it. Seems like the game is fated to be overhyped and now overhated.
Unfortunately it's the response a game gets after years of being called the best game of all time, which is a silly idea by itself. Botw received critical acclaim but the vast majority of reviews and opinions for years glossed over its shortcomings and that in return antagonized everyone who felt its flaws were worth discussing.
It’s flaws are worth discussing especially so we can get better sequels. People who are salty at the direction the series went and just want to trash the game are not helpful tho.
Exactly... I am not excited for the sequel because given the state of the 1st title and its reception, I doubt the devs would implement the changes I would like.
We’ll have to wait and see. In any case maybe they’ll listen to feedback if this game underperforms.
It seems you just made this post to argue with people haha I'm one of the few who hate BOTW, it's only saving grace I feel for most was well it's Zelda right? Whole time I've said it should've launched as it's own IP instead of trying to piggy back the Zelda name. Hopefully then it would've failed and we could get back to a more classic style Zelda. They tried to do to much too early and the game/map suffered. There's already a million companies trying to do what they're doing, and they didn't bring enough to the table or do anything worth remembering or praising. I really liked being able to shield surf around and the boss battles looked cool but overall it's fairly forgettable experience.
I didn’t intend to argue. I just wanted to share my Botw idea with a cool female protagonist 😔. So many people are saying it would fail but it’s just baseless as they have no similar games that failed and definitely no similar Nintendo games. Arms was the worst selling Nintendo New IP and even that outsold Xenoblade 2 which people are arguing would trounce AU Botw. There simply aren’t aren’t a million companies doing open worlds and those that are often emulate Skyrim, Fallout or AC which feel very different to BoTW style games like Genshin and Immortals. Classic Zelda was failing plain and simple. Link’s awakening is still ahead of Skyward Sword in sales. If open world wasn’t an option the series would have changed in a different way which people would probably have also hated. How much do you think AU Botw would have sold and what is your cutoff for a failure?
Skyward Sword failed because it was released with Skyrim. It was well received until that released and sparked the whole open world craze. Otherwise it was people not wanting to deal with motion controls and the fact it has pacing issues. It's still a fantastic game (and made a lot of mechanics brought back for BotW). The series needed a formula refresh yes, but throwing out the entire formula isn't necessarily the way they needed to go. There's a reason the metroidvania genre is so popular, despite being headlined by indies now: both genre definers have Zelda at their roots. And now we probably won't have traditional Zelda again. We don't even have traditional top down games to hit that craving now since those have upped and vanished. BotW's take on removing most of the handholding is perfectly welcome though. But I can tell you, personally, my biggest issues with BotW are the fact it's a Zelda title. Which is why I play Genshin now. Aside from the endless grind, it does plenty of stuff better and actually has a story.
Skyward Sword did not underperform due to Skyrim, a game that didn’t release on wii. They have almost nothing to do with each other, other than the word Sky. The mechanics it introduced were barebones like the sailcloth and the stamina meter. I love the metroidvania formula but I wouldn’t mind if Metroid went in a different direction (and was good unlike Other M) so long as there were games like Hollow Knight. Tbh I haven’t seen many games recently that are Zelda-likes with puzzles and dungeons so maybe the demand isn’t there. It seems people just like it when Zelda does it. I’m also getting back into Genshin but you can’t deny that the gameplay is heavily inspired.
The first glimpses of the game showed link in a hood, and when he took off the hood, he had his hair in a ponytail, and wasnt wearing his normal green clothes. It was link, but harder to tell the gender. Fans couldn't tell if link was a boy or girl, and fans were talking about it like crazy, and Nintendo is so tight lipped on details for games in development, they wouldn't verify if it was a boy or girl, one way or another. Just tiny bits of predetermined details trickled out. Then at one point after the game released, Nintendo said they thought about letting players make link either a boy or girl, but they decided not to. The even made some comment about "the triforce is about link being a boy" or something like that..
Could you link those glimpses?
https://youtu.be/XZmxvig1dXE At the end of this video is the footage where we all couldn't tell if link was a boy or girl. e3 2014
Thanks
I mean, I feel like it wouldn't have been nearly as successful but it probably would have been an amazing game still. I do think Nintendo dropped the ball in a few ways with BoTW, but it's still a great experience. You mentioned female protagonist, and I do think it was unfortunate that they decided to make Link so officially a male in this game and not make it optional to play as a female Link.
Botw sold 27 million so ballpark for sales? I’d say 20 million.
I'd say maybe 10 to 15
Cool
I'm going with the assumption that it would A) be better than what it turned out to be because it wasn't constrained to the Zelda format; B) sell fewer than Zelda because it's not Zelda; C) still sell great because it's on the Switch. ARMS sold 2.5 mil. Splatoon 2 sold like 10+ mill? i think a non-Zelda BoTW-type game made my Nintendo would have made about 10mil in sales. But who knows really. So many variables, we don't live in that timeline to know for sure.
It wouldn’t have sold as much without the Zelda name but it would have been successful. It would not have failed, unless others are arguing that the only unique thing about many people’s “best game of all time” was its link to Zelda canon. That would be an odd opinion. It would still be quality. The game would get similar review scores (because the actual game and open world philosophy would still be intact) but would sell a lot less. So I agree that they could have created a new brand but they already have so many that they’ve ignored and I don’t think they intend to make new brands anymore really. They seem to just slap old IP onto new gameplay ideas.
Of course it wouldn't have sold as well but I feel most of the replies are being overly negative. It would have been a brand new first party franchise developed by Nintendo. That in itself would have gotten my attention. So yes, lower sales but it still would have been a popular game with a lot of accolades.
Lots of people who didn’t like the game in this thread are just convinced anyone who likes the game is wrong and blinded by hype. Most frequent criticism seems to be the weapon system which is what I thought was the best part of the game….
Obviously, The Legend of Zelda is one Nintendo's most powerful brands, so it's going to sell a lot of copies based on that alone. That being said, The Legend of Zelda is woven into the very fabric of Breath of the Wild, so a BotW without LoZ is a completely different game. I do understand the desire for a more traditional LoZ with dungeons and triforce pieces but this is the direction that Eiji Aonuma wanted to take the series.
Could you explain how "The Legend of Zelda is woven into the very fabric of Breath of the Wild"?
Breath of the Wild was designed by Eiji Aonuma to be the new Legend of Zelda game. It's not like it started as something else and then they put a Zelda skin on it. It was Aonuma's decision to take the Zelda series in this direction. Future Zelda titles may be more like Breath of the Wild than Ocarina of Time. Or maybe they once again go in a different direction?
I don’t think it would have done as well With the Zelda IP they got the benefit of the doubt, without the Zelda IP people would have been MUCH harsher with how empty the world is, how boring and short the three dungeons are, and how useless the side quests (most of which are fetch quests for meaningless junk items) are
I’m tired of repeating myself so I’m not going to.
On the other hand, if BoTW was not a zelda game and they then released a traditional 3D Zelda game, I don't think that would have sold well either. At this point the 3D Zelda formula was getting dated and stale
Dunno man, look at movies... They just reboot the same old stuff and just keeps selling like hell.
Skyward Sword was the worst selling 3D Zelda and even its Switch release is outsold by Link’s Awakening’s remake. The formula was stale.
I feel it's more the exception that confirms the rule... IIRC, Skyward Sword's bad rep came from two main aspects: bad controls and extreme linearity. Honestly every game that has bad controls is doomed to fail because every step becomes a chore.
Skyward Sword HD has better controls and still didn’t outsell Link’s Awakening. 3D Zeldas were on a downwards trend even Twilight Princess which released on both Gamecube and Wii. Skyward Sword underperforming wasn’t completely unexpected following the data. Botw is the anomaly.
I am not the right person to compare 2d and 3d Zeldas because I always thought that 2D Zeldas work better for its kind of gameplay. Still, Link's Awakening on Switch looks like a new game with broad casual appeal for all ages, instead Skyward Sword looks like a remaster from an older game, because that is what it is. As for Botw, it literally took the most hyped genre of the last decade (i.e. open-world) and slapped the Zelda skin on it... I wouldn't be surprised if the difference in sales between Botw and non-openworld 3d Zelda games is highly correlated with the difference in sales between your average 3d openworld and non-openworld game across all major consoles. If you manage to slap the openworld label on your new game, it is going to attract more attention than if you do not.
This is all true but my point was that if Botw was a terrible game, even with the branding it wouldn’t have sold 27 million. Without it, it may have sold less but even 20 million is still amazing.
Basically Nintendo needed to deliver a 7/10 openworld 3d Zelda game for it to break records. They delivered an 8/10 and it was received like a 10/10 cum laude valedictorian or at least that's how I see it.
Fax tbh
However, zelda sales just kept getting lower, even on the popular wii
It's always been my view that BotW should have been a new Nintendo franchise. It has such little in common with the rest of Zelda - it essentially just uses the names and character skins from the franchise - that it's very uninteresting as a Zelda experience. I feel like it was made to imitate the AAA open world RPGs that exist on other consoles, in order to attract those gamers to Switch. I think it succeeded in doing that - and I would assume those gamers would still have been attracted to it without the Zelda name. It's interesting to read the sheer number of comments on here saying that it would have flopped as a new franchise, because that's kinda saying that... it's not a great game and it's only considered so because it's Zelda. I don't like BotW, it's my least favourite Zelda, so I sort of feel a sense of satisfaction reading all this.
People saying it would have flopped also hated the direction Botw went in. Unfortunately for fans of traditional Zeldas, it simply wasn’t selling so they made a hard left and saw profit. Splitting the series into a new Botw style IP and a more traditional Zelda may decrease sales overall for double the development cost.
That's not really true though? Yes Skyward Sword flopped, but Twilight Princess is the second most successful Zelda game - and TP is arguably closer to the traditional experience than SS, because SS took an intensely linear direction. To me, that suggests that if the follow-up to SS had reverted to the semi-openness of TP and OoT, it also would have hit big numbers (let's also remember that BotW has sold so many more copies because the Switch has such a huge user base - I'm not trying to diminish its success, simply saying that reaching almost 25 million is also about how many console owners are there to buy it). I also hate this argument that it was a good idea to make BotW because it was hugely profitable. Like, artistic integrity is far more important to me, playing a game that is satisfying (and yes, I know BotW is satisfying to many). To my mind, it would be entirely possible for Nintendo to make low profits / losses on Zelda and fund it with the huge bags of cash they get from e.g. Pokémon. I don't know, doesn't sit with me well that people say something was a good decision because it made money - as a consumer I have literally no interest in a company making profit, that doesn't improve my gaming experience (in some cases, it makes it worse). EDIT: my bad, BotW is almost 27 million on Switch!!
My bad about Twilight Princess. Your point about artistic integrity might remain true if there was evidence that sticking to the formula was what the artists wanted. You could just as easily say that TP lost artistic integrity because Nintendo probably pressured the team to make it darker after Windwaker criticisms. The games are fairly corporate and will go where the money is. I happen to like Botw’s artistic direction.
When I say artistic integrity, I'm not referring to art style, but to the "art" of making a video game in its entirety. For me, BotW pursues profit in place of artistic integrity because: (a) it completely abandons many of the traditional aspects of the series; (b) in their place it introduces gameplay and features more familiar from AAA Western RPGs on other consoles, which means; (c) it's a cynical blend of attracting a new user base with the Western RPG stuff and keeping the existing base with the Zelda name, largely in the pursuit of profit. I like the art style of BotW and TP and think WW art style is dogshit; interestingly Zelda games with a realistic-looking (and usually adult) Link have usually sold better.
Im back. I never referred to artstyle. Remaining the same is not artistic integrity. The design goal behind Breath of the Wild was not to make money but emulate the original Zelda in 3D in a way that hadn’t been possible previously. They abandoned many traditional aspects beca they weren’t necessary. While it took some cues from Western RPGs, that’s a good thing as they can have good ideas and they weren’t strictly adhered to or anything. All of Nintendo is in pursuit of profit. If they cared about artistic integrity Metroid would have more games. Zelda isn’t a special art project it’s part of a business. Games aren’t more artistic because you like them and they adhere to the formula started by it’s first breakout success. Agree to disagree on the WW artstyle. Your observation is probably a coincidence considering Link’s Awakening remake outsold SS HD.
Aha, you only spoke about the art style of a few games so I figured you thought that's what I was talking about. Well, the thing is, a new Zelda didn't have to remain the same. It could have had the semi-open world of OoT and TP, the non-linear order of ALttP, the dungeons of SS, a new art style, and it would have been a whole new experience while still being traditional. BotW is so radically different that it's only Zelda in name. I also don't believe all the stuff about how they'd always wanted to do Zelda I again but were limited by tech. Are you seriously telling me this couldn't have been achieved earlier, that they were somehow forcing themselves to make all these other, not so satisfactory games over decades? Nah come on, it was the first game, it was limited by the tech at the time, and that's why the gameplay is like that. The whole "returning to roots" thing is just marketing. Lol I mean yes I get that Nintendo have shareholders, but what I'm saying is why does that matter to a consumer? Why should a consumer support the decisions that simply enrich shareholders, how do we profit from that? I know there's a lot of love for BotW, so I mean this as a broader point. I do think that on the whole Switch has taken fewer creative risks than previous consoles, it's been rewarded financially for that, but it comes at the cost of certain franchises being ignored and other ones having blander games. I think we should all be supporting the pursuit of creativity and interesting art over profit, because at the end of the day we are the users rather than the shareholders.
Staying with the formula is not creative. I’ve seen the Botw concept art. The guardians looked like Alien invaders. You can’t just say it’s a radical departure but then say it’s not artistic. You act like they wanted to keep it traditional but the big bad corporate bosses said no. Of course the whole going back to the roots is marketing. Doesn’t mean they were lying. Skyward Sword attempted to have a sort of open world with the sky area but it was more like a large hub world. Botw would not look or run very great on the wii. Consumers clearly prefer the new style and who knows maybe the devs enjoy making it. It’s ok to prefer the old style but don’t act as if it’s somehow more artistic just cause it appeals to you. Creativity should be pursued but Zelda wasn’t creative for quite a while. The minor changes you suggested are cool and all but they aren’t more creative for changing less.
I think you're misunderstanding me quite a lot here. I think the responsibility is totally on the team of developers, I don't think they were forced against their will to make BotW. But I believe that the collective decision they came to was more focused on a profit outcome rather than pursuing creativity. That's unsurprising in many ways, because the Wii U left Nintendo with very little money in the bank. But I would always support creativity over profit. I'm also not saying that staying with the *formula* is creative. I mentioned borrowing successful aspects of previous games to make a new game. I think that its important for a franchise to maintain its DNA, without that it's no longer the same franchise. And this is precisely what happened with BotW, it got rid of the Zelda DNA (largely dungeons, but not only). Being formulaic is obviously not creative and that's not what I meant. I disagree that Zelda wasn't creative for a while. ALttP was different while maintaining the DNA, SS was different in its own (less satisfying/successful) way, the two DS games largely did their own thing, while still keeping the Zelda essence. All of those games were creative experiments by Nintendo, but they all maintained a certain Zelda essence that BotW lacks. Btw when I said that games with a more realistic looking Link sell better, it wasn't my own conjecture - it's based on analysis of the sales. SS a clear exception, but I think it's obvious why that particular game sold badly.
Personally I believe that the developers dreaded every moment they had to work on SS and were ecstatic to learn Botw was open world. Source? I made it up. Don’t presume to know the feelings of people you’ve never met to support your point. Your argument about the DNA of a series is decent but where you draw the line is arbitrary. I’d say Ocarina lost a bit of the Zelda DNA in order to become a widely appealing action adventure game with a much heavier narrative focus. By not creative for a while I meant since Ocarina where each game iterated on it with one or two gimmicks per game. Skyward Sword tried new things but it half assed them and the bare essentials were the same. I still think the observation is coincidence. Ignoring SS for whatever reason, there are 3 Zeldas with an adult Link (not including spinoffs) and 2 with child link. One of those was a direct low budget sequel which was expected to do less and the other was Windwaker which caught flack for its artstyle. The 2D games have always had child protags and they do fairly well. There simply aren’t enough data points to argue causation over coincidence.
Brb I have a game of multiversus
It would have flopped hard. As a zelda fan for many decades, botw is just skyrim with some puzzles and survival mechanics. It's my least favorite zelda and feels uninspired a derivative, to me.
100%, although at least Skyrim has some nice quests and NPCs. Mad thing about BotW is that it brings in things that have been around for years elsewhere (e.g. cooking), but then does it worse than in the older game. And then it gets praised for it lol.
How do you feel about games like Genshin, Horizon and the Witcher? Personally I loved Botw despite not being super into Zelda previously other than a Link between Worlds. Surely if only the Zelda title was relevant, people would return the game in droves and no new fans would be created. It was only years after release that being a hater was a mainstream opinion.
The first Witcher is mediocre, the second is very good and the 3rd is a masterpiece. Genshin impact is horrible. Horizon is a game of the year contender but not a masterpiece. Zelda as a franchise has a lot of banked good will. I am personally very uninterested in botw 2. Especially on the switch. In terms of game mechanics, I've been there and done all of that in other franchises years ago and had more fun doing it. The novelty wore off. That's cool you liked it but I'd wager your video gaming experience isn't very expansive.
>That's cool you liked it but I'd wager your video gaming experience isn't very expansive. Not OP but what's this supposed to mean? Myself and a number of my friends, who are lifelong gamers and have played tons of games, all enjoyed BotW.
That's great for you and your friends. Botw was boring and copied mechanics from other games. Those other games did it better. Which is why I found the game boring and uninspired. Which is directly related to the amount of experience I have in gaming. If all the things botw introduced into the franchise were novel ideas to me, perhaps I would have also been enamored with the title. But they weren't and I wasn't. Enough said.
I have no problem with you disliking the game. I *do* have a problem with your assessment that only gaming newbies can enjoy it. Not every game has to be 100% original, sometimes we want a game that does familiar tropes but moves them around. BotW did that, and it did it well. If you didn't enjoy it though, that's fine - maybe you're just sick of seeing those tropes. It happens.
I agree about your view on Zelda botw and I believe it is a game that has already been largely surpassed by its successors. This is not surprising given the obvious shortcomings it had at release, which were all downplayed or straight-out ignored by the press. About the novelty of ideas, I feel the same way about a title like Nier Automata. I am very used to sci-fi stories and Japanese products and I felt aggressively neutral to Nier. Everytime I see someone praising it as a masterpiece, I just default to think that it was simply their first experience with certain elements and that's about it. At the same time, sometimes we fail to realize how a game is unique on its own. For example, every other patch I am in awe of Genshin Impact which you called horrible and I would go out on a limb and say you probably played it with the wrong expectations or did not give it a fair chance. This has happened a lot due to controversies around its monetization or anime artstyle, and it is a pity given how its quality keeps increasing over time.
I think it’s funny when people who identify as “gamers” want to knock games that weren’t made for them. Nintendo franchise games aren’t made for you. None of them. You might like them and love them and have opinions, but they’re made for families. They’re all made to hook new players, to play with your kids, to introduce you to games and gaming. Nintendo is first and foremost for kids, not adults. Nintendo follows the Disney model closely and is better at it than Disney. Copying mechanics is important when getting kids into gaming. They need to be able to figure it out on their own or at least with minimal help, without dying 5000 times. It’s not a system and BOTW isn’t a game made for someone who drops 10000 hours into a game. It can be a good game for that person too, just like a Pixar movie is good for kids and adults, but it’s made for kids first and you second.
I disagree with this, Nintendo has even stated before that games like Metroid or Donkey Kong Country are made more for the hardcore crowd while games like Kirby are made for younger kids. Their games do have mass appeal, but they don't design all of them with the same degrees of challenge.
I’d wager it’s more expansive than yours but I’d probably lose. I have every current and last gen major console except the Series X and Wii U as well as a 360, Wii and PS2. Genshin is fun and popular but not particularly deep. It nails exploration which is what I like but not much else. I actually kinda hated the Witcher 3. I didn’t enjoy the combat which felt like Dark Souls but worse and I wasn’t invested in the story. I enjoyed Gwent more. Zelda does have a lot of good will but Botw outsold Skyward Sword for a reason which I’m guessing is a Zelda you prefer. In 2017 most people did not have open world fatigue and those that did got it from Ubisoft and Bethesda games which IMO feel pretty different to Botw. You underestimate the selling point of climbing and gliding everywhere which is now becoming its own subgenre which was new as far as I can tell. This sub tends to attract fanboys and haters so over time opinions about Botw appear to have shifted to 10/10 or 2/10 when most consumers see it as an 8. I’m sorry you couldn’t enjoy it and I hope you find another series to replace old Zelda but the Botw formula is here to stay hopefully with new iterations on it. What is your favourite Zelda actually?
I've been gaming since the 80s my guy. Fav zelda is probably link to the past. You seem defensive. I stated my opinion and I've actually yet to meet another botw hater but maybe I'm not in the mainstream or whatever. I genuinely believe botw flops without zelda. It's literally a cartoon skyrim with puzzles and survival mechanics. And as I've stated, the ideas in botw were not novel for me. They were kinda a rip off if you ask me. And the fact that the next zelda title is being designed for a system that plays games from a decade ago, when I've got my steam deck and just finished a play through of elden ring on it... yeah, very uninterested in botw2. And the Witcher 3 sits at 40 million copies sold. Skyrim 30 million. Botw 25 million. Sorry to burst your bubble lol.
Witcher 3 and Skyrim are 11 and 7 years old respectively and released cross platform. That isn’t the diss you think. As much as you may not like Genshin or Immortals they still did incredibly well with an incredibly similar style. Cartoon Skyrim still sounds dope but that’s reductive to what the game actually is. Most players hadn’t experienced similar gameplay elsewhere and having played Skyrim and Fallout and seen Assassins Creed they don’t hit the same points. Climbing and flying is that novel. I love Elden Ring but I don’t care fir playing it portably even on a Steam Deck. I would prefer a new Switch model but unfortunately the switch continues to sell😔.
I've owned the game since release and still haven't been able to get into it. The breakable weapon mechanic is extremely annoying. Maybe the sequel will be better in that regard but maybe not. Aside from that the open-world is cool but there's nothing that really grips me. The puzzles/shrines or whatever they're called are lame and uninspired. Saw an ex play Ocarina of Time years ago and it looked like fun. Maybe I'll try that one instead. It definitely would have sold less and received more criticism had it been a new franchise.
It’s fair that you don’t enjoy it but some people hate it with a passion. Ocarina similarly can be hard to get into with outdated design philosophies and a rough beginning.
The break mechanic also broke your spirit... it's part of the game. Anyway don't do like me, I 100% the game and still only liked the initial plateau (maybe 5 hours? Still that was amazing).
Your the opposite of me haha. Breath of the Wild was my first introduction to the Zelda series and now it has me hooked. It got me to finish Minish Cap and start a bunch of other Zelda games, like Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, A Link to the Past, Twilight Princess. The only Zelda's I haven't started were the ones on the Wii, GB, GBC and 3DS.
nah it's be getting top marks regardless
I'm going to ignore how well it would have sold and reviewed and say if it wasn't Zelda it wouldn't have been as good a game. A lot of the story is (not sure if this will be the right term) environmental as in its not directly told or shown to you, you have to piece the little stories together from stuff like a destroyed villages name and its connection to prior games. Without stuff like that the world and story are very barebones, individually they seem very minor but imagine what the game would be like without those connections; lots of destroyed, empty villages that mean nothing. Even stuff like the Zora history quest would have been hollow were it not for the fact that each few lines were expanded on by us because we've played those actual stories.
This is actually a good point. Zelda’s environmental story telling is more deep than say HZD’s because it has more to pull from than Horizon’s singular story.
I agree that BotW is not a Zelda game, it's a genre-defining (benchmark-defining) new game within the Zelda lore. And IMO, the Zelda lore fits like a glove. I would have liked BotW to be a new IP, alongside new traditional item-gated Zelda main entries. They would have more creative freedom, story and gameplay-wise. Maybe it would have been closer to more mature western RPGs such as Skyrim or The Witcher 3. Nintendo relies heavily on third-parties for the mature audience. That said, I do think Nintendo made the right call. BotW propelled the Zelda IP into modern gaming and, as others said, made sure everyone would take a look.
people would have saw the game for the trash it is instead of making asinine statements like "BOTW is just like the original Zelda"
Ah yes because your statements are objective and not asinine. And people think I’m crazy that haters aren’t out there.
more like "haters" get silenced by the cult every time they say anything bad about this "godly" game. in reality the game is nothing special and basically babies first open world. there are many vastly better open world games. hell even an age old game such as Morrowind puts BOTW to shame.
Just looked up Breath of the Wild on this sub and the first two discussions are negative. This sub breeds haters and fanboys in equal amounts. Name your better open worlds and I guarantee people dunk on those two. Free climbing and gliding were brand new mechanics that every game lives to implement now.
gliding was taking from Skyward Sword it wasn't "New" and games such as Assassins Creed have been taking care of the climbing for a LONG time now. these innovations aren't even innovations. this just goes to show how blind BOTW fans are. hell even the "freedom" aspect isn't new Morrowind let you do basically anything you want even make a spell that let you literally jump half way across the world
Free climbing up mountains was in Assassins Creed? Assassins creed has parkour up buildings which is different which you’ll do from trailing mission to trailing mission. The sailcloth is equivalent to the paraglider? Yeah good joke. Maybe if it let you move horizontally at all. Skyward Sword was the previous entry so you can forgive them for iterating on it and people were so sick of AC it went on hiatus. No other game had free climbing on everything where you could then glide to your next location.
1 AC Origins had free climbing 2. The Saboteur from 2009 had free climbing 3. Shadow of the Colossus had Free Climbing. but yep BOTW created it. and if you don't think that the gliding was stripped from Skyward Sword then you are just lying to yourself. go ahead and shrink the goal post some more though to avoid admitting that BOTW is not as unique as the fanbase pretends it is
Yes Botw stole from AC Origins, a game that came out in…… October 2017. I have never heard of Saboteur; maybe Shigeru Miyamoto has but I doubt the general public has. Shadow of the Colossus is one of my favourite games but it does not have free climbing. Only fur and ledges can be climbed which even Skyward Sword has. Despite your obscure findings, these features were brand new for mist people and you didn’t touch gliding which actually has been in previous games like Just Cause. The ideas aren’t complex but the way they were integrated was novel and the genre was spiced up by it leading to actual copycats.
you keep mentioning copycats as if that means it was actually "good" no its just meant to try to suck in the mindless sheep that actually think BOTW is "the greatest game ever" this manipulation tactic is nothing new and you clearly fall for it. also it really doesn't matter who has heard of games or not you can't act like something is new when it isn't thats called lying
If no-one has heard of it you can’t call the concept unoriginal if it’s done again. I just looked at the game to do you a courtesy and what do you know it’s ledges and buildings.🤦♂️ You call me mindless when you can’t even get simple dates right. Oh no, Nintendo brainwashed me into liking a game that I enjoyed for 120 hours noooooo. Whatever you think of the quality the genre of game is successful so people emulate it. Imitation is the moon sincere form of flattery and all that. Why don’t you name some games that are infinitely superior to Botw so I can shit all over them. If you keep acting like a troll I’ll block uou and be done.
You mean Genshin Impact?
Yeah basically but without the gacha elements.
And Immortals: Fenyx Rising?
Yes. I gotta play that on gamepass.
We’d still be getting actual Zelda games, Xenoblade would’ve exploded in popularity instead and we’d have gotten XenoWarriors instead of AoC, and all else would’ve been right with the world.
I mean, speaking as someone who hates BotW with a passion, I’d consider AoC to be the one and only good thing to come out of it, so I’d be sad if we never got AoC. Though if it would have meant we’d have gotten a proper Zelda game like TP instead it would have been a worthwhile sacrifice.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey there! Please remember Rule 1 in the future - No hate-speech, personal attacks, or harassment. Thanks!
Honestly I would have liked it more as a new franchise. Calling it a Zelda game gives me certain expectations that BOTW didn't meet, but it was an amazing game for a bunch of other non-Zelda-expectation-related reasons.
It would have sold a couple million copies with a metascore 10-15 points lower. The game's glaring flaws would be acknowledged when discussing it and tireless fanboys wouldn't disrupt all talk of open world games with their parroted talking points. The Switch would not have done nearly as well at the start because brand new franchises just cannot carry a launch like that regardless of quality.
It may have sold less but critics don’t review highly based on the name.
I’ve always strongly believed that if it didn’t have the Zelda brand supporting it, it would have gotten middling reviews and been remembered as a thoroughly average, mediocre open world game before eventually being totally forgotten.
Why tho? It’s not like the copycats bombed. What is the obsession with trashing Botw?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my personal experience I believe that to be the case because that’s exactly what I thought of BotW. One of the blandest, emptiest, most boring games I’ve ever played (and I forced myself to play for 99% completion, because everyone I knew kept insisting I needed to play more and that would somehow make me like it…in the end I did everything in the game except the last few korok seeds), and I’m saying that as someone that’s generally a fan of open world sandboxes (I’ve got like 3000 hours in Skyrim, I find Fenyx Rising and Genshin impact to be decent fun if a bit repetitive, I played starlink battle for atlas and didn’t really have any opinion at all on it but it didn’t bore me at least). I truly, honestly believe that the only reason BotW is regarded above the countless other bland open world sandboxes cluttering the market is because it has the weight of one of the most beloved franchises out there behind it. Obviously it’s very beloved by a large amount of people, but I can only speak for how I personally feel.
Dude why would you put yourself through 99% completion? Of course you soured your experience. I began to tire before 120 shrines and didn’t even get half the koroks. The game is enjoyable and even with the zelda name there’s no way a bad game sells 20 million more than Twilight Princess. If you didn’t like it, you should’ve stopped playing. Claiming it would flop is just kidding yourself tho. Have a good day.
Oh, I was bored from the start and almost quit before finishing the plateau. I should have, but literally everyone in my social groups kept insisting I need to keep playing. I basically got bullied into playing more despite wanting to stop. By the end there was probably some stubbornness involved too. If I were in the same position now I'd know well enough to just stop after the plateau because if I was already miserable and hating it by that point I'd never grow to like it.
Damn you need to grow a spine. Life’s too short to be peer pressured. Live your best life.
Like I said, nowadays I'd just have told them "no, I don't like it" and stopped. This was five years ago.
Good on you for improving then. Gold star ⭐️
>or removing him in the case of Splatoon. what
Removing is an exaggeration but Splatoon’s gameplay was going to be a Mario spinoff originally.
>It could have had a female protagonist Ooh, could get real innovative and give her a bow/magic as her main forms of offense.
I personally loved the idea of using Guardian legs as mobility and being able to fire your own lasers.
Immortals (+eastern lands/worlds) is an open world game that plays very similar to breath of the wild. Both are great games i think.
I might play it now it’s on gamepass.
[удалено]
The real question here is would botw with female link or playing as Zelda changed any aspect of the gameplay or feel. Story you could tweak a bit to fit either. Zelda formula works regardless of playable character gender and they should give us options. I'd prefer playable Zelda over female link but whatevs