0
()
submitted a long while ago by @ to c/@
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 42 points 2 months ago

I played it on a PC and I love it. There's a shitton of detail and interaction. If TOTK is mid, what's truly a masterpiece? 🤨

[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago
[-] rab@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago

That's the only Zelda game I can't get to click for me, I first played it at release and I'm still trying to like it lol

The time limit thing just isn't fun for me

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago

'Cause we got Elden Ring

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

What board did OP post it on

[-] NotMaster@lemmynsfw.com 21 points 2 months ago

/totkswitchnopcallowed

[-] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

People really hate weapon durability, huh? I thought it was kind of genius, and that TotK introducing a way to repair weapons was really bad for the gameplay loop.

[-] force@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The durability system is just extremely tedious in both BotW and ToTK. It takes a lot of fun out of the game imo. Especially since items have such little durability, they break far too quickly.

I also think the same about ACNH. I have a similar view (probably controversial) about Minecraft, except I think it'd be fine if the tools didn't permanently break and you could just repair them afterwards. Only if you fix anvils/repairing tho, it's been totally broken forever, although I guess mending exists as a bandaid. But really I prefer something like Terraria where there's just no durability period.

A long time ago, I played Fortnite Save the World (the PvE mode) and that was one of the worst offenders for weapon durability, at least for a beginner.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 45 points 2 months ago

People hate that they removed everything about the Zelda games that made them fun and charming, and left a mid grinding experience. The weapons breaking don't really bother me much.

Old Zelda: find a temple, new set of enemies, solve puzzles until you get to the new tool, solve puzzles with the tool, fight a large boss that the tool conveniently works really well on.

New Zelda: find a shrine, fight yet another of these little guys. Find a shrine, solve two or three of the same puzzles with the tools you got in the first hour of gameplay. Spend large amounts of time just walking through areas of the map fighting the same campsites and outposts, hoping for a radar beep so you can find a shrine.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] aido@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

TotK didn't introduce a way to repair weapons, it reduced their durability to near nothing then gave you a way to buff them.

[-] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It did. In TotK only, put (almost) any weapon or shield on the ground in front of a Rock Octorok and let it inhale it and spit it out. You'll get back the same base weapon, with the same fused item, at full durability, but with a rerolled modifier. Each Rock Octorok can only do this once, so kill it afterwards so that you remember which ones you've used. They'll respawn at each Blood Moon so that you can repair again.

Some special weapons can't be repaired this way, so you have to use a workaround. If you want to keep whatever you have fused to them, go to Tarry Town and have the goron separate it. Then fuse the unrepairable weapon to anything that can be repaired. Feed that to a Rock Octorok, then take it back to Tarry Town and have it separated. The "unrepairable" weapon will good as new.

My Eldin map is covered in stamps showing where Rock Octoroks are, and I have a full inventory of strong weapons because I switch when their durability is low and then go on a somewhat tedious repairing spree when most of my weapons are flashing red.

[-] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 5 points 2 months ago

And so much of this is just grind:

  • grinding to find oktoroks
  • grinding to exponentially find more of the little seed shits, so you can increase your inventory
  • grinding to repair your weapons.

BoTW was a grindfest, and ToTK chucked more grind on top

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

It's mostly just that it doesn't make any fucking sense, most especially after the beginning of the game. None of the weapons are mostly diverse enough that the frequent changing created by durability encourages you to really play the game any differently, usually you have a stockpile of extra weapons anyways so you don't really even need to pick up new stuff, and most of the hard enemies drop the weapons that deal higher damage, meaning you'll want to use the high damage weapons on those enemies, so there's not much decision-making going on there. After fighting enough hard enemies later in the game, you get enough high damage weapons that it's not even really worth it to interact with most of the random bokoblin camps. Not that doing so was super interesting to begin with, outside of like the first couple hours of gameplay.

TotK solves some of these problems with the fusion mechanic and having increased enemy variety, but it's still not great, and most of what it does serves to assuage the shittiness of the system rather than provide a reason for it to exist in the first place.

[-] LucidNightmare@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Yeah. Weapon degradation in a video game that isn't trying to go for a realism vibe is absolutely fucking garbage. You've got arrows that light on fire, turn to ice, or have lighting as soon as you pull them out of the quiver, but yeah. Totally makes sense that my Master Sword needs a lil sleepy time to become usable again. Just fucking garbage.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Rinna@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think I'd be fine with it if they buffed it with everything and had a system that told you how much durability is left that isnt just the weapons' last few hits. It feels way too low for me and is somewhat unpredictable imo.

[-] kemsat@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

The entire system was trash from the get go. I don’t care that weapons break IRL; I’m playing a fucking video game, get that shit out of there.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago

It's completely true. I like to call this the Halo effect. It's a pretty mid game that's entirely alone on it's platform, and therefore is massively popular and stands out.

That doesn't mean there aren't some fun features, like great physics, but that doesn't mean it's a truly great game.

[-] jose1324@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

No way you just said Halo was mid

[-] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

As someone that has no nostalgia for the series, I have to agree with them. Halo was mid

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I have played halo 1, 2, 3, and 4 front to back on legendary. It is one of my only accomplishments as a gamer, I have completed almost no other games. No ODST or Reach for me though, because I am unlucky.

Halo is a shooter from a pre-call of duty, pre-titanfall, pre-brink, pre-mirror's edge era. It doesn't have really any interesting movement mechanics, and the . The grappling hook in infinite is maybe a response to this other, better variety of FPS, but I still think it kinda comes up flat. It has basically no interesting cover mechanics. Post-doom, quake, unreal tournament, and boomer shooter, though, and those had good movement, so who fuckin knows what their deal is.

No, halo's much slower. Halo, you have a slower walk speed, your enemy projectiles are supposed to move much slower since they're all plasma based and you're usually offered the opportunity to have hitscan weapons. So your movement still matters, it's just less interesting. Most of the appeal of halo comes about as a result of this slower movement speed affording more easily made levels, with more interesting level design, and more easily made enemy AI with more interesting behaviors. Basically, where other shooters make the core gameplay as fun as possible, on the player's side, making the player a more interesting character to control and use, Halo would rather make everything else as fun as possible, everything around that core.

Most FPS's just have like, open spaces, and then corridors, and then big rooms, and that's basically it, because they can't make the level geometry super complicated without screwing up the player's movement options, or over-complicating everything since the player can either look at enemies or look at the level design and usually not at both at the same time, which is also why they mostly always try to keep you moving towards the enemies, or why unreal tournament relies so much on you memorizing the arenas.

I think this means that when most people evaluate Halo, they're doing so by measuring it against other shooters, and against this other philosophy, and Halo obviously ends up as pretty mid when measured against that. It also doesn't help that Halo can be pretty hit and miss with this philosophy, since this relies more on very consistently interesting changes in level design and enemy variety to keep things spicy, and this novelty tends to wear off as the series inevitably chugs along. It also doesn't help, the number of mid shooters which followed in Halo's wake, or are reminiscent of halo specifically because of this lack of mechanical complexity, this minimalism, but without understanding what made Halo good, was that they made up for it with a lot more hard work poured into the rest of the game.

I don't think it would be a major mistake to call halo mid, especially on the average, and especially as the series chugs along, and there's really just less and less to do in order to make it interesting, both in the story and in the basic design. At the same time, the series does have some pretty high highs, and probably Halo is one of the most interestingly designed first person shooters I've seen, because it's so hard to see the depth at first glance.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

I did, and I stand by it.

[-] Trev625@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

I've been playing through the Halo series recently as I missed the craze growing up because I had a PlayStation and I'm not really getting it. I'm guessing it's just something you had to be there for? My first game was Super Mario World on the SNES and I loved COD4 when it dropped but trying to play Halo now is just not doing it for me I guess.

[-] Estiar@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago

You can't tell me how to have fun.

this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)

0 readers
0 users here now

founded a long while ago