Legend of Zelda thread - Lorefags GTFO!

[huecoffs02]

It looks like DLC

Nothing against you, but this is one of the most retarded points I have seen that everyone is throwing around for EVERYTHING nowadays. When does a game "look" like a sequel? When the settings changes? Or when the narrative changes? Or when new features are introduced? Or when it does something different?

Like I sort of get WHY people say it about TotK, I disagree but I can see the point. But I have seen the same thing said about all sorts of different games and it's just so retarded. I've seen it said about Horizon 2, Splatoon 2/3, Doom Eternal, and even some indies.

 

[NerdShamer]

Nothing against you, but this is one of the most retarded points I have seen that everyone is throwing around for EVERYTHING nowadays. When does a game "look" like a sequel? When the settings changes? Or when the narrative changes? Or when new features are introduced? Or when it does something different?

Like I sort of get WHY people say it about TotK, I disagree but I can see the point. But I have seen the same thing said about all sorts of different games and it's just so retarded. I've seen it said about Horizon 2, Splatoon 2/3, Doom Eternal, and even some indies.

Yeah, but people just aren't used to direct sequels set five weeks into the future.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

When does a game "look" like a sequel?

Maybe when it has more than "attach things to weapons", "make vehicles out of junk" and "make things go in reverse" as the biggest draws?

You're whole "I see why you say it" thing is kind of telling. You like it, that's cool, but don't get mad if some of us expected to see more. I'm usually the first to bitch at people complaining about sequels not doing enough but come the fuck on how am I supposed to get excited over 3 or 4 new abilities and a "new story"? At worst this is really lame after 6 years, at best this is a really bad showing of the game at this point.

 

[Replacement Account]

I think the problem some people are having with this 'not looking like a sequel' is that if you didn't like BOTW you won't like this because it's BOTW with more stuff.

Zelda sequels are usually more different from each other, not counting OoT/MM and the GBC games I guess.

Personally I don't mind the whole Mario Galaxy/Galaxy 2 thing they seem to have going on here, but it's completely understandable if you don't.

 

[huecoffs02]

Maybe when it has more than "attach things to weapons", "make vehicles out of junk" and "make things go in reverse" as the biggest draws?

You're whole "I see why you say it" thing is kind of telling. You like it, that's cool, but don't get mad if some of us expected to see more. I'm usually the first to bitch at people complaining about sequels not doing enough but come the fuck on how am I supposed to get excited over 3 or 4 new abilities and a "new story"? At worst this is really lame after 6 years, at best this is a really bad showing of the game at this point.

No no, I am genuinely asking when does a game look like a sequel instead of DLC. When we went from COD 1 to 2 to 3 they were pretty much the same game with a different story and bumps in graphics and tech and people said "this is a sequel". When we got Infamous 2, people accepted it as a sequel but almost everything in that game (aside from the change in art direction) could have been implemented in an expansion.

Doom Eternal has been called glorified DLC too and, to me at least, that is retarded.

You're free to expect whatever you want to expect and it'd be even more retarded for me to get mad at that. I just really don't get when do you consider something a sequel and not an expansion? If the map was new with a different layout could that be counted as a sequel?

 

[Dr. Geronimo]

Because the idea of not being happy about BOTW2 seems to be confusing to some people, ponder this:

If I am a Zelda fan that does not enjoy BOTW, what did this gameplay reveal do to make me want to play this?

 

[Tren Shapiro]

Because the idea of not being happy about BOTW2 seems to be confusing to some people, ponder this:

If I am a Zelda fan that does not enjoy BOTW, what did this gameplay reveal do to make me want to play this?

Nothing. It's a direct sequel to Breath of the Wild. It's not for you. It was never for you.

 

[NerdShamer]

No no, I am genuinely asking when does a game look like a sequel instead of DLC

As of now, it's mostly an moderately altered version of Hyrule with some QoL improvements and some new side content. What would sell it for me if something catastrophic happened or that we find out the reason why we're traveling to those floating islands.

As far as I can tell, people are mainly pissed that they have to pay $70 for stuff that isn't inspiring; and that this trailer is more or less all we know about the gameplay. The drama might die off as some more trailers get posted, though

 

[IDanceonTrannyGraves]

I keep buying Zelda games and getting bored and quitting. I'm not buying the hype or this game.

 

[Airbrushed Van Art]

I keep buying Zelda games and getting bored and quitting. I'm not buying the hype or this game.

I played the shit out of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess. I played about an hour of Breath of the Wild and got bored. Tried to get back into it a few times and… meh.

I can’t figure out why I felt that the game was boring.

This new game… at first I thought it was just DLC. It looks completely the same.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

The idea that this wasn't "made for me" because it's for Breath of the WIld fans is absurd. I 100%ed Breath of the Wild (besides Korok seeds cause I'm not retarded). I enjoyed my time with the game.

I'm done with it though. I wanted something meaningful and all they're showing is a few fucking around abilities. If there were dungeons you would think they'd show off some gameplay of a dungeon. You'd think they'd show off some of these major changes to the world space unless they literally just mean sky islands. At least show off one of these caves...

Also for all the complaints about people saying it looks like DLC, it probably doesn't help that Nintendo flat out said this came about from DLC ideas...

 

[mrs thickness]

I don't follow Zelda games pre-release, but I've read in some places today that it's not uncommon for pre-release Zelda information to be really scarce, as to let the game speak for itself and not spoil anything. I can respect that, but it's been almost an entire console generation by now. I've lost count of how many times I've watched some Nintendo thing where Aonuma shows up just to grovel and beg for forgiveness and explain the basic premise of the game again and how epic it'll be, the buildup has been massive. Today's presentation felt like it was supposed to be a big establishing moment for the game and what they learned from BOTW and what secrets they've been keeping for 6 years, but it was just Aonuma being a typical charisma black hole showing off the same familiar (and controversial) core gameplay systems but with more inventory micromanagement. It's a really bad first impression to make even without considering the advancements in the Open World Crafting Survival RPG Hybrid Bullshit genre that have happened since BOTW.

 

[Mary the Goldsmith]

No no, I am genuinely asking when does a game look like a sequel instead of DLC. When we went from COD 1 to 2 to 3 they were pretty much the same game with a different story and bumps in graphics and tech and people said "this is a sequel". When we got Infamous 2, people accepted it as a sequel but almost everything in that game (aside from the change in art direction) could have been implemented in an expansion.

Doom Eternal has been called glorified DLC too and, to me at least, that is retarded.

You're free to expect whatever you want to expect and it'd be even more retarded for me to get mad at that. I just really don't get when do you consider something a sequel and not an expansion? If the map was new with a different layout could that be counted as a sequel?

For me the difference or part of the difference between glorified DLC and proper sequel is length in storyline and changes in setting, for example the Spider Man Miles Morales game is a glorified DLC it features the same map from the PS4 Spiderman game but with snow this time and the main story is very short, I think its shorter than the Spiderman DLC, and even complete with all sidequests and collectibles the game was ridiculously short.
An even more blatant example: Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2 has no changes in the graphics department, roughly the first half of the storymode is the same and even reuses some cutscenes from the first game, and the first game's story mode was later added in an DLC.
Last example Overwatch 2, I don't think I need to explain why.
Tears of the Kingdom already reuses the same map and from what I've seen it only has minor changes, so it now depends on how much story content, side quests etc. it has.

 

[NerdShamer]

If there were dungeons you would think they'd show off some gameplay of a dungeon

Well, the game comes out within an month, so it's not like that this will be the only trailer that they've made. They're probably just saving it for an Direct or an excuse to draw out the marketing campaign. In fact, I won't be surprised if the next one tl;dr the bit about exploring the ground

 

[huecoffs02]

If there were dungeons you would think they'd show off some gameplay of a dungeon

We didn't know about the Divine Beasts or how the functioned as "dungeons" until the previews.

 

[TheDarknessGrows]

Can I have access to the pre-release copy that some of you have gotten? I would really like to play.

BOTW

 

[Never Scored]

It's a direct sequel to Breath of the Wild. It looks and plays like a direct sequel to Breath of the Wild.

I bet the same niggas who liked Breath of the Wild will like this.

I loved Breath of the Wild, but after watching the video I don't understand why something that seemingly uses the same engine and map with some new content added was supposedly so much more expensive to develop it costs more than the original game.

It'd be like if Mario Galaxy 2 took six years to come out and costed substantially more than the first one.

 

[Becomemysoulreaver12]

I am not happy with what has been shown so far, but claiming to know that the game is just small content added to the botw map based on only like 15 minutes of total footage we have is retarded, the sky islands and caves is already a lot of work I assume, but even still we havent seen whatever the equivalent to devine beasts/dungeons are, we have no idea what the fuck the story is about, I dont believe we have seen any shrine like area.

 

[Tren Shapiro]

Also for all the complaints about people saying it looks like DLC, it probably doesn't help that Nintendo flat out said this came about from DLC ideas...

It's incredibly common for a new game to start off from the ideas set aside during development of previous games. It doesn't add to the argument that it looks like DLC because that argument is meaningless. DLC means downloadable content. That could be anything. Often it means a few hours of extra content. This is a full game.

I loved Breath of the Wild, but after watching the video I don't understand why something that seemingly uses the same engine and map with some new content added was supposedly so much more expensive to develop it costs more than the original game.

It'd be like if Mario Galaxy 2 took six years to come out and costed substantially more than the first one.

It doesn't cost substantially more. $60 in 2017 is $75 today due to inflation.

 

[whatever I feel like]

I rebooted BotW today and am having a really fun time going around, finding a few Koroks, getting the Xenoblade armor. Still not as skilled as I used to be in combat though.