TotK and BotW both share the same problem IMO, though TotK fares far far better. Theyre not Zelda games, they’re open world Ubisoft games with the Zelda name and way less bugs.
Both are locked to a console that can’t even properly run them. Playing on PC with better framerates and weapon durability disabled definitely help them feel more fun, but ultimately they give about as much fun as a game like Far Cry 5 or 6.
Once I completed the main quest I just haven’t ever gone back to them, and I probably never will. But I have replayed through Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Twilight Princess at least 5 times each.
Being in the same genre, how specific do you want? Open world fantasy? Elden Ring IMO. Zelda games? Pick any of the ones made after Zelda II and before BotW, CDi games not included, and you’re probably going to have a more “Zelda” experience. RPGs just in general? Probably Chrono Trigger or Divinity Original Sin 2.
I am having a rough time getting back to FC5 honestly. It is interesting in short bursts, but playing it for more than like 45 minutes becomes incredibly tiring. The nonstop spawning enemies, the main character being a literal vegetable unable to do anything for themselves, etc. I only just completed one area and started in Henbane River before dropping it to play Yakuza Zero instead. Maybe Ill go back to it eventually, but it just doesn’t hold my attention the same. Unfortunately, Yakuza Zero’s real estate side game has more compelling gamplay to me.
Even the story is not very interesting IMO. Cults are just not an interesting plot device in anything they are ever included in. They weren’t interesting to me in Silent Hill (which is why I really liked 2), they’re not interesting in RE4, heck the cult episodes of X-Files were some of the weakest in the series IMO. So you can imagine the eye rolling to be had when I started Far Cry 5 and found out that was the main story element. I didn’t do any research into the story and just went based on the fact that it was on sale for like $8 and had decent review scores. I didn’t want to accidentally spoil the story for myself, but the price was low enough that I don’t feel terribly robbed.
Don’t get me wrong, both games could have been better. Yes, the story was extremely weak at times and it feels like there was more emphasis on quantity of content instead of quality but overall I still had a pretty good time.
Personally, I think FC6 was the better game of the two, although both had extremely weak endings. But overall, it just had a bit more polish, between the vastly improved weapons customization, Giancarlo Esposito’s acting, and the main character having a much more believable story, not to mention an actual personality, instead of being somewhat of a blank slate with unclear motivations who basically turns up out of nowhere to wreck an entire county.
Either way, I don’t think I would have paid full price for either but for what I paid to get them on sale I was certainly decently entertained. The DLCs are garbage, however.
Haha, what.
Zelda 1 was open world.
Breath and Tears are more true to the franchise than any game since, but you’ll not see me tossing any of them into the bin out of some arbitrary genre loyalty.
Uh
The one that defined the franchise? Isn’t true to the franchise? It literally was the franchise in its time.
It’s the originator. It’s the roots in “get back to our roots”. Talking nonsense about “departures” is pretty dumb when the direction in which it departs is towards the first game in the series. That’s not a departure, that’s a return.
Zelda 1 started the franchise, but it doesn’t define it. Ask anyone the most definitive Zelda game, and most people will tell you Zelda 3: A Link to the Past, or Ocarina of Time (which I think is Zelda 4 but I am not sure 100%).
Notably, every mainline Zelda game after 3 followed a definitive formula that 3 started, which BotW and TotK ditched. TotK kinda tried to bring back some of the formula, and thats why I say TotK is far better than BotW, but it still wasn’t what most would expect from Zelda.
Every Zelda game (for the most part) is open world. They may have linear story progression, but most open world games are like that.
The N64 titles are open world and even allow variance in the order you complete tasks and they have side quests you discover naturally through game play.
Wind waker is very open world, alttp and it’s derivatives are open world.
TotK and BotW both share the same problem IMO, though TotK fares far far better. Theyre not Zelda games, they’re open world Ubisoft games with the Zelda name and way less bugs.
Both are locked to a console that can’t even properly run them. Playing on PC with better framerates and weapon durability disabled definitely help them feel more fun, but ultimately they give about as much fun as a game like Far Cry 5 or 6.
Once I completed the main quest I just haven’t ever gone back to them, and I probably never will. But I have replayed through Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Twilight Princess at least 5 times each.
Being in the same genre, how specific do you want? Open world fantasy? Elden Ring IMO. Zelda games? Pick any of the ones made after Zelda II and before BotW, CDi games not included, and you’re probably going to have a more “Zelda” experience. RPGs just in general? Probably Chrono Trigger or Divinity Original Sin 2.
Downvote me if you must but I finished AND enjoyed both Far Cry 5 and 6.
I am having a rough time getting back to FC5 honestly. It is interesting in short bursts, but playing it for more than like 45 minutes becomes incredibly tiring. The nonstop spawning enemies, the main character being a literal vegetable unable to do anything for themselves, etc. I only just completed one area and started in Henbane River before dropping it to play Yakuza Zero instead. Maybe Ill go back to it eventually, but it just doesn’t hold my attention the same. Unfortunately, Yakuza Zero’s real estate side game has more compelling gamplay to me.
Even the story is not very interesting IMO. Cults are just not an interesting plot device in anything they are ever included in. They weren’t interesting to me in Silent Hill (which is why I really liked 2), they’re not interesting in RE4, heck the cult episodes of X-Files were some of the weakest in the series IMO. So you can imagine the eye rolling to be had when I started Far Cry 5 and found out that was the main story element. I didn’t do any research into the story and just went based on the fact that it was on sale for like $8 and had decent review scores. I didn’t want to accidentally spoil the story for myself, but the price was low enough that I don’t feel terribly robbed.
Don’t get me wrong, both games could have been better. Yes, the story was extremely weak at times and it feels like there was more emphasis on quantity of content instead of quality but overall I still had a pretty good time.
Personally, I think FC6 was the better game of the two, although both had extremely weak endings. But overall, it just had a bit more polish, between the vastly improved weapons customization, Giancarlo Esposito’s acting, and the main character having a much more believable story, not to mention an actual personality, instead of being somewhat of a blank slate with unclear motivations who basically turns up out of nowhere to wreck an entire county.
Either way, I don’t think I would have paid full price for either but for what I paid to get them on sale I was certainly decently entertained. The DLCs are garbage, however.
Haha, what.
Zelda 1 was open world.
Breath and Tears are more true to the franchise than any game since, but you’ll not see me tossing any of them into the bin out of some arbitrary genre loyalty.
Zelda 1 was the only game in the franchise that was open world until BotW came out. No, it was not the most true to the franchise.
Uh
The one that defined the franchise? Isn’t true to the franchise? It literally was the franchise in its time.
It’s the originator. It’s the roots in “get back to our roots”. Talking nonsense about “departures” is pretty dumb when the direction in which it departs is towards the first game in the series. That’s not a departure, that’s a return.
So the latest Prince of Persia isn’t a departure from the usual formula because the Apple II PoP was a sidescroller?
Yes
Zelda 1 started the franchise, but it doesn’t define it. Ask anyone the most definitive Zelda game, and most people will tell you Zelda 3: A Link to the Past, or Ocarina of Time (which I think is Zelda 4 but I am not sure 100%).
Notably, every mainline Zelda game after 3 followed a definitive formula that 3 started, which BotW and TotK ditched. TotK kinda tried to bring back some of the formula, and thats why I say TotK is far better than BotW, but it still wasn’t what most would expect from Zelda.
“Oh no, Zelda’s too much like Zelda”
Every Zelda game (for the most part) is open world. They may have linear story progression, but most open world games are like that.
The N64 titles are open world and even allow variance in the order you complete tasks and they have side quests you discover naturally through game play.
Wind waker is very open world, alttp and it’s derivatives are open world.
Is everyone forgetting about Wind Waker? That was open world