Slashdot Mirror
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Review By Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
Kyle Orland writes via Ars Technica: At this point, the Legend of Zelda series operates on a rhythm so predictable you can practically set your watch to it. In a Zelda game, after an extremely slow-paced tutorial, you progress from puzzle-filled dungeon to puzzle-filled dungeon, finding in each one a key item that -- coincidentally -- is crucial to beating the dungeon boss and to finding the next dungeon. Between dungeons, you face perfunctory battles with simple enemies on a vast overworld map dotted with small towns and occasional mini-games and side-quests. Most of these give you rewards that are already so plentiful as to be practically worthless (oh, goodie, more rupees to fill my already full wallet). By the time you reach Ganon, your circuitous trip from point A to point B has given you a set of required powers that help you take on the big bad boss threatening the kingdom. Individual Zelda games each make slight variations to this formula, but the basic rhythm is there every time. And then there's the new Breath of the Wild (BotW), a Zelda game that throws off this established rhythm so quickly, and with such force, that it practically feels like a whole new genre. In doing so, Breath of the Wild offers a compelling take on a stagnating series, bringing a sense of wonder and excitement back to Zelda that hasn't been felt this strongly since the original NES game. "Breath of the Wild is my new favorite 3D Zelda game and in contention for the top spot in the series overall," Orland writes in ending. "Don't miss it." You can read his full review here
At metacritic, BotW has a 98 score, second only to Ocarina of Time, with over 50 reviews. I, for one, cannot wait (and, yes, I'm buying the Switch for this).
Seems everything Nintendo related on that site is dipped in a sour grape sauce.
Just as an FYI this game is also being released on the Wii-U. So you don't actually have to choose between buying a Switch or missing BotW. That's a false-choice dichotomy.
Did you miss the part about his whole post implying that BotW is indeed such a game? And note that he didn't even actually say whether he bought a Wii-U or not, he merely implied that it wasn't worth it. Guys like you and him spend so much time talking about how much they don't want to buy Nintendo stuff I''d really think it'd even eventually become obvious to even yourselves that you doth protest too much.
Amazing. The same link tool us to 2 completely different reviews
Did you miss the part about not buying a WiiU because there was nothing in the catalogue to make it worth it? A single Zelda game, no matter how good, is not going to change that
With a new console out, Wii Us are likely to come onto the used market, making it significantly cheaper to acquire, potentially enough so that it is worth it for the one game.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Switch doesn't seem worth it to me, that Mario game is a little off-putting honestly! With my Wii U I can already enjoy it on the TV as well as off the TV playing in bed (or bathroom *cough*) if I want to. The Switch version doesn't offer me much else, and there's no reason for me to jump on a Switch now when there are bugs in the hardware (left controller losing sync often) and system + game bundles on the horizon for the holidays.
Twinstiq, game news
They bitch about the same old Zelda formula in the new game, but then praise Pokemon Sun & Moon for being the same old pokemon formula.
Be seeing you...
Comprehension fail. The last sentence says that this Zelda breaks away from that tired formula.
tbh, it looked like a negative review to me. A reviewer can't actually say too many negative things and get away with it, but the sarcasm was deep here. Basically:
Same tired plot.
Trite, ridiculous characters.
Boring tutorial.
Long, boring, open spaces.
Scenarios that don't make sense (hiding in a barrel, picking apples).
It seems that you stopped reading just before the part that says:
And then there's the new Breath of the Wild (BotW), a Zelda game that throws off this established rhythm so quickly, and with such force, that it practically feels like a whole new genre. In doing so, Breath of the Wild offers a compelling take on a stagnating series, bringing a sense of wonder and excitement back to Zelda that hasn't been felt this strongly since the original NES game.
RT.
>> With a new console out, Wii Us are likely to come onto the used market
Not sure how many will. For me, the Wii U will probably be my last Nintendo console, but I'm going to hang onto it, especially since it's the only way I can still play my dozen-or-so Wii games. I'll buy the new Zelda game and play it on my Wii U, but its availability on the Wii U becomes just yet another reason why I never need to look at getting a Switch.
There's the Wii-U version if you have that system, which is apparently the superior version. Judging by several comparisons between the Switch version and the Wii-U: The Switch version was missing several graphic effects that the Wii-U had (Volumetric Fog, Lighting effects, etc). The only thing that can be said for the switch is the texture resolution was slightly better and not having the Volumetric Fog and Cloud effects made for sharper landscape images.
The launch of the Switch has so far been a botch only slightly worse than the launch of Sega's Dreamcast; At least the Dreamcast didn't require a day one patch to work.
With no exclusive IP that does anything innovative expected to be released in the next year (Metroid? Kid Icarus? Donkey Kong? Star Fox?) Nintendo is going to have to work a hell of a lot harder than they have been if they expect me to buy into the next console before its EOL year. Of course, I'm just one person who's not going to affect their bottom line by anything more than maybe a couple thousand. What do I matter?
I simply pointed out that the OP's reading comprehension left something to be desired. Nothing you said contradicts, addresses, or in any way relates to that point. Instead, you engaged in juvenile name calling, espoused baseless conspiracy theories, and then launched into a tirade over an unrelated topic.
If you want to rant about random topics, by my guest, but don't expect me to care.
See subject: I point out verifiable data the President of the United States thinks CNN (arstechnica's parent) = trash
Okay, and? How does any of that relate to anything I said? I was talking about what Ars' review said, not whether or not Ars is a quality organization.
The fact is, I don't read Ars, nor have I ever read Ars on a regular basis. I used to go there once a year to read John Siracusa's annual OS X reviews, but he quit doing those a few years ago, so I don't even have that reason to go there any more. Frankly, I don't care what you, the President, or anyone else thinks about them, since I have no vested interest in them. Moreover, the notion that I'm stalking or harassing you is laughable, given that you're the one that initiated contact with me, rather than the other way around.
Again, if you want me to care one bit about anything you're saying, relate it back to the topic at hand. As it is, you're just ranting about a random topic I don't care about while firing off spurious accusations about me that clearly have no grounding in reality.
So, you read the heading, but didn't even make it through his one-line post and my response? Had you done so, you'd have realized that he was making some very specific accusations against Ars, which was what I addressed in my response to him, and that his heading had nothing to do with the rest of what was said. Your failure to realize that suggests you're guilty of the exact same lack of reading comprehension that he was guilty of.
As for the rest, paint me with whatever false brush you want. Once again, until it relates back to the topic at-hand, I have no reason to concern myself with unsubstantiated rants that an unidentified person who claims to be APK makes online.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Allow me to reiterate:
As for the rest, paint me with whatever false brush you want. Once again, until it relates back to the topic at-hand, I have no reason to concern myself with unsubstantiated rants that an unidentified person who claims to be APK makes online.
Repeating unfounded accusations about topics I don't care about neither makes them come true nor does it make me magically care about them, I'm afraid. You seem to be rather wound up about this though.
As for the rest, paint me with whatever false brush you want. Once again, until it relates back to the topic at-hand, I have no reason to concern myself with unsubstantiated rants that an unidentified person who claims to be APK makes online.
APK and I have had lengthy, civil conversations several times in the past. I've used this pseudonym in every interaction we've had and he's had no problem with me using it. And because I use a pseudonym (as opposed to posting anonymously), I have a posting history that stretches back for years to back that up.
In contrast, you've been posting anonymously. In addition to not remembering the encounters I just mentioned, you've also failed to demonstrate evidence of your identity when it was called into question. From past experience, I've seen that he doesn't double-down on logical fallacies like ad hominem when the other person is willing to engage him in conversation, and he is usually pretty good at staying on topic. That leaves me with only two possibilities:
1) That you're an imposter.
2) That you've sunk to common trolling.
Though #2 is a possibility, I prefer to believe #1. As I said, you've failed to prove your identity, and I'd prefer to give the real guy the benefit of the doubt.
As for calling me a troll, as I said before, I didn't initiate contact with you and I've refrained from insulting you or your ideas when given the opportunity. None of my actions can be construed as trolling, whereas you started with ad hominem attacks, kept them up, and then repeatedly attempted to derail the conversation, all of which are classic techniques. On top of that, none of the "evidence" you've provided is in any way related to me or anything I've said, so no, you're not substantiating anything you've said against me with facts.
And on the topic of unsubstantiated claims, saying you stopped 10 botnets is easy. I could claim I stopped World War 3 yesterday by hacking an ICBM to fall harmlessly out of the sky, but that doesn't make it true, let alone relevant. After all, this isn't an e-peen measuring contest; we're talking about whether or not Ars said what the OP thought they said, and clearly I'm correct in that regard, given that what they said is completely contrary to what the OP claimed. Simple as that. If you disagree, I'd love to here why.
I am, literally, APK.
There's no proof of that, and if you think I'm playing word games or playing with semantics, you don't understand what either of those things are.
Answer the question in my subject
I already did when I said it was a pseudonym, which brings us back around to the topic of poor reading comprehension that I've been trying to discuss this entire time...
As for those being your initials, where's the proof you say you've provided? You're an Anonymous Coward who has provided links to other posts made by Anonymous Cowards. None of that proves anything. I could respond to you as an Anonymous Coward and sign my posts with APK's initials, but that doesn't make me APK.
Thanks for admitting you use a FAKE NAME online for your FAKE LIFE.
...says the Anonymous Coward who hasn't provided any evidence to support a single claim he's made regarding his identity.
Besides which, if you think that using a pseudonym is proof of poor character, then apparently you count "Anubis IV" among an elite crowd of pseudonyms linked to people of poor character like Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Mark Twain, Buddha, Banksy, Muhammad Ali, Yogi Berra, Malcolm X, and many, many others, all of whom are more well known by their pseudonyms than their real names.
Pseudonyms, like many other tools, can be used for good or bad. I should hope that as someone else who is using a pseudonym, Anonymous Coward, you'd appreciate that fact. As it is, nothing I've said here depends on my identity (e.g. I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything in particular, nor would it matter if I was), so my points stand or fall on their own merit. Not so with you, however, since you've made multiple claims to authority (another form of logical fallacy, I'll point out) that depend on your identity (e.g. claiming you are the person who stopped 10 botnets, claiming Ars people stalk you because they know who you are, etc.), despite not providing a shred of evidence to back up your identity.