安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
It makes for a decent open world exploration game i guess, but it really isn't what i would call a "Zelda game".
There's a reason why Zelda's item based progression and progressively expanding puzzles have become so iconic over the years.
Tears was a fantastic physics sandbox. But if asked, i'd pick pretty much any other Zelda game over it.
Plus, this open world crap usually kills replayability. It's fun to explore it once, but going through all that nonsense again usually isn't all that appealing.
Exploration was why Zelda became a thing (I think it was when Miyamoto explored forests in his childhood).
The game's formula kinda showed its limits with Skyward Sword.
Many people agreed that it changed Open World games with the sheer amount of small details and letting player's expression manage to do more than imposed, oneway puzzles.
Especially when the game is hard at the start (which is what the series was heavily criticised about, even Twilight Princess and Wind Waker were a bit too casal for the era).
You are still getting new items, just that they offer you the choice to either directly engage with Ganon or do the four main quests (or even go for the full exploration of the world), it's what makes the game more open.
It's weird because replayabilty in Zelda has always suffered from the intro forcing you to do things one way and not another whereas after unlocking the Paraglider thus being more free to go for any main dungeons or events in the game.
Well, since it's bigger you have also less reasons to replay from the start whereas a standard game has you do 100% things or redo the story.
We simply couldn't get the OoT formula ad infinitum (as revolutionary it was for '98 it showed its limits).
Even Ys' gameplay formula evolved between the bump system, side-scrolling (WFY), normal hack 'n slash with jumping (from Kefin to the Napishtim engine trilogy) to team based gameplay (Seven and Celceta) as well as an hybrid of both (Lacrimosa and Monstrum with Team + Jumping) in full 360 3D gameplay.
Ys X is probably a step in the new direction but I wouldn't say no for a solo Adol game with even bigger areas (not Open World, just see Lacrimosa but with a scale similar to Monstrum Nox' main city).
You...very much aren't...
In both, Breath and Tears, you have your entire toolkit after the tutorial.
You have to, due to the games open nature.
AlttP introduced a progression structure not unlike Metroid, with items expanding your toolkit which in turn opens up more of the world to the player.
That's what many people, myself included, still associate with a "Zelda game" and what's missing from the last two titles.
...which is exactly what i mean. It hampers replayability.
To me, i usually do a playthrough of a random assortment of Zelda games across a year.
My OoT playthroughs are in the double digits by now.
Breath? I finished it once and never picked it up again. The majority of its charm depended on you exploring the world. If you know the world, the appeal is pretty much gone, because the core gameplay loop is incredibly monotonous on replays.
It worked for 22 years without fault. We very much could have.
You're describing gameplay mechanics, not game structure though.
The structure of Ys games never really changed. They always remained straight forward action RPG's with light item / ability progression.
But at the end of the day, this is one of these discussions that will never go anywhere fruitful.
We just have to agree to disagree, else we'll be spinning in circles here :D
Naturally, it wasn't until Breath of the Wild and especially Tears of the Kingdom that you started seeing people say "I miss the OoT remakes actually". This always happens. You can never please everyone, and you should never try.
Zelda fans are truly ungratteful, they are still upset at the Spaceworld demo as well as the Wii U TP demo despite promising nothing.
Hell, even Echoes of Wisdom that tried to do something new is also being complained because "Zelda isn't using a sword" when she's not a warrior but a magic user.
Ganondorf outside of OoT used magic? I don't recall entirely.
I still think that if Zelda was just Link but with a reskin it wouldn't have been the best choice since the game is all about having a new and fresh experience.
sword mode is a great compromise tho
Ys X is pretty great, it also looks pretty good, the anime visuals, the animations in-game and in cutscenes are above average, and the gameplay is pretty fun.
the protagonists show 100% more emotion than link at any given time, and the game is alot more fun to play, and much less frustrating, compared to ToTK.
it's also not bound to one single platform, like ToTK.
last but not least:
nobody is forcing you to purchase the game, if you don't want it, don't buy it.
none of us care about you not wanting to purchase the game.
Which is one of the reasons I never got into nu-Zelda or understood the hype. Both BotW and TotK looked like washed out, textureless, piss-filtered garbage, brutally decapitated by a CCP-mandated knockoff. Most characters are deformed freaks that haven't seen a leg day in their lives. The games are an assault on the eyes on all fronts and don't look current-gen or even previous-gen if we are discussing the technical side of graphics. Beyond the visuals I also have no interest in open world and physics tech demos parading as games. The former in particular is one reason video games have been so garbage this decade and it cannot join its brown and bloom shooter cousin in fad hell soon enough.
As for why I prefer Ys and check out every game in the franchise: No open world. Better artstyle. Better music. Better gameplay. Better characters. Adol Christin is a superior protagonist to your twink. It's shrimple really.
Even modern games with high quality textures but with a barebone art style are not appealing because they don't try anything else than replicating real life (and we know that it will never be perfectly replicated and that we don't need to be able to count the nostril on a character to be able to enjoy a game).
You clearly don't understand that BotW (and by extent TotK) are using a cel shaded art style simply because it passes easier and it works better to have less strain on the RAM while allowing to be an fully open game.
Saying it's a "textureless washed out filtered garbage" is just false, you are allowed to not like that art style but don't make it an objective fact.
Even Twilight Princess (that shows its age because it's a more realistic GC game from 2006) had characters with unrealistic proportions anyway.
PS: it's also supposed to look a bit washed out because it's a world set long in the future after an apocalypse so that things are decayed or kept as good as they could.
Ground breaking games had some tech demo elements into them (like Half-Life²), what is the issue with showing newly added technologies?
If you have no interest in OW (which Zelda has always been in some way) good for you.
It has nothing to do with "the video game have been garbage to this decade"...
Ys 1 was Open World tho (yes, you can clearly travel in the plains and chose to go in that cave and outside of the final dungeon you could go anywhere you want), same with Ys OiF, AoN, LoD and MN.
Only II, IV, V, Seven (to some extent) and Origin were more linear (even though you could go back in previous places).
Calling Link a twink is quite funny since Adol himself is a "Bishounen" (pretty boy) which has some androgyny to appeal to women (his MN design at 24 still looks young).
I do, and Ninty has been doing this since long before BotW. Doesn't change the fact it's not a particularly good celshaded style.
I need you to point out where in my post did I say this was objective fact. Aesthetics are, in fact, subjective, and in my subjective opinion the Switch Zelda games look like complete diarrhea. You are welcome to disagree.
The issue is when such technology wank ended up not being very engaging as game mechanics which happens more often than not. Even though I had some fun with HL2, I ultimately found HL1 to be the better game.
Are you alright, ESL? That's not what was written in the post. It is not a coincidence that every franchise that went open world took a nosedive in quality, and I simply took this chance to point that out since we have been discussing probably the most prime example of its ilk.
You are conflating non-linearity (which is good) with open world (which is trash). Rookie mistake. See, the issue with open meme was never that you could "go anywhere you want" (also, backtracking has nothing to do with either). The issue is that this genre lends itself to low quality designs where your "world" is just vast stretches of purposeless empty space for the sake of making things le hecking open, which is then populated with low quality filler content such as copy-pasted dungeons, temples, enemy camps, and ♥♥♥♥♥♥ collectibles, and where "exploration" consists of holding left stick forward on a vehicle for minutes on end and waving the camera at the sky to check for the next landmark. Normgroids eat this up because their taste is abysmal and they prefer virtual sightseeing to actually playing a well-designed video game, but the industry will grow out of it eventually.
Looking young and having bishonen traits do not necessarily make a character a twink. A twink is something that cranks all of these to eleven and made specifically to appeal to sissy femboy coomers.
no other word needed to buy YsX.
no comparison with Zelda world.