{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/15/2019 10:02:19 AM
17
I don't see how people can criticise BOTW and then call Skyrim a good game.
BOTW is a solid 8/10, like most Zelda games. It's one of the only good open world games that isn't a sandbox, and meets its goals and desires masterfully. Yes, the bosses are really poor, yes the ending was really poor, and yes people who call it perfect and/or the best game ever are wrong, and yes this arguably makes it overrated, but it's still a great game. And all this is without mentioning the game's unique approach to game design and storytelling, and the way it experimented, certainly more than other open world action adventure games do.
But what I don't get, is how people can criticise BOTW's dungeons, combat, voice acting, open world, and quests, and then call Skyrim a masterpiece. Like, who are you kidding?
Let's do a quick comparison:
Skyrim's combat is literally button mashing to see a boring slashing animation, whereas BOTW has an in depth, complex dodge-hit combat system, that incorporates interesting world interaction and throwing breakable weapons, and using a bow and melee weapon at the same time.
Skyrim literally has one voice actor over and over, whereas all of BOTW's main characters have an actual identity.
Skyrim's dungeons are all medieval sewers, BOTW's are all steampunk-ish underground testing chambers.
Skyrim has a mostly empty open world with a few mobile NPCs, enemies and collectables, ditto for BOTW.
The quests for both involve one main quest where you're the chosen one, and a bunch of fetch quests.
What I'm getting at is, they both have some of the same flaws, but at least BOTW has some actual strengths to go along with them.
English
-
While I definitely agree with you here, I can see how someone could like Skyrim over BotW. For one, there’s Epic’s reason. Skyrim’s a lot more handholdy, which some people like. But there’s also the durability system, which while I hold it as one of BotW’s greatest strengths, a lot of people [i]really[/i] didn’t like it. The two games have a vastly different aesthetic. I’m split on this one. I like BotW’s art style more, but I stillhate the robo-Sheikah stuff. And Skyrim’s RPG mechanics might be barebones, but BotW has even less. I’m even on this one. Of course, none of these are good or bad things, but they are differences that could make one’s opinion sway either or.
-
[quote]And Skyrim’s RPG mechanics might be barebones, but BotW has even less.[/quote] The difference is that the Elder Scrolls series actually is meant to be an RPG, and people hold up Skyrim in particular as "the best RPG ever," which should not be the case, because it barely functions as an RPG. Meanwhile, the Legend of Zelda series is not, and never has been, an RPG. I mean, yeah, let people like whatever they want, and there are differences between Skyrim and BOTW which are going to cause people to sway one way or the other. My issue is when people start speaking objectively. "Overrated" is an objective term, and as such it is either right or wrong. Similarly, genre is an objective rating system, and the status of something as "good," "bad," "best" or "worst" is somewhat subjective (purely because of the quantity of titles to choose from) in your final decision, but is also objective in relation to which titles are genuine contenders. But basically my issue to begin with, was that people will ignore every single one of Skyrim's shortcomings, but PROJECT those flaws onto BOTW, some applicable, some not.
-
Oh, I know. I was just listing it as a possible reason. I would argue overrated isn’t an objective term, though. I think it’s purely opinion.
-
[quote]I would argue overrated isn’t an objective term, though. I think it’s purely opinion.[/quote] How?
-
I’ve explained to you the idea that an opinion can’t be wrong, so long as it doesn’t claim any facts, right? Like, a person’s experience is always their experience, no matter how baseless it may be? For something to be factually overrated, the opinions of those praising it would have to be wrong, which simply can’t happen. The term overrated is instead a personal view. “[u]I think[/u] this game gets more praise than it should” rather than saying that’s an objective fact about the game.
-
[quote]I’ve explained to you the idea that an opinion can’t be wrong, so long as it doesn’t claim any facts, right? Like, a person’s experience is always their experience, no matter how baseless it may be?[/quote] Yes. [quote]For something to be factually overrated, the opinions of those praising it would have to be wrong, which simply can’t happen.[/quote] Yes it can. Like you said just above - an opinion can't be wrong, [b]so long as it doesn't claim any facts.[/b] If someone praises something, that specific praise could be factually correct or incorrect. [quote]The term overrated is instead a personal view. “[u]I think[/u] this game gets more praise than it should” rather than saying that’s an objective fact about the game.[/quote] That's one possibility, so long as they do specify the part of "I think." But it's also possible for something to factually get more praise than it deserves.
-
[quote]Yes it can. Like you said just above - an opinion can't be wrong, [b]so long as it doesn't claim any facts.[/b] If someone praises something, that specific praise could be factually correct or incorrect.[/quote] Well, yes that’s true. Once you start involving claimed facts it gets more complicated, though. It’s not necessarily the opinion that’s wrong, it’s the facts claimed with it. [quote]That's one possibility, so long as they do specify the part of "I think."[/quote] I think the “I think” should always just assumed to be implied, unless the person claims otherwise. [quote]But it's also possible for something to factually get more praise than it deserves.[/quote] But then who decides how much praise is the appropriate amount? Because that’s always subjective.
-
[quote]Well, yes that’s true. Once you start involving claimed facts it gets more complicated, though. It’s not necessarily the opinion that’s wrong, it’s the facts claimed with it.[/quote] Yes. Alternatively, if the person confuses the subjective with the objective, and vice versa. [quote]But then who decides how much praise is the appropriate amount? Because that’s always subjective.[/quote] I'm not arguing for rigidity. For example, like you said in your Indivisible post - scores mean different things to different people. In the same way, strengths and flaws have different impacts for different people. Here's the thing: if I see a 10/10, I expect the product in question to be either perfect, or very close to it. For someone else it might just mean "really good," and a third person might expect that to be perfect, with no room for any flaws at all. They're all valid approaches, but here's where there's an issue. If one person rates a game 9/10, and someone else rates it 3/10, that's a MASSIVE divide. It becomes no longer about how much impact a given flaw has, and more a question of "are these actually flaws... or not?" They can't both be right, because regardless of differing opinions on the MEANING of each rating, one person says the game is bad, the other says it's good. It can't be both. Now, don't get me wrong, I want to make something clear: One person can like it and the other dislike it - that's fine. But you call a game a 3/10 and it needs to have either loads of kinda significant flaws or a few hugely significant flaws. And if the person can't back that rating up with actual, genuine flaws, their review is not really a review. It's a confusion of personal preference, with objectivity. Tl;dr, here's a specific example - Dark Souls is great. But that could mean it deserves 10, 9 or 8/10. All three of those are perfectly valid scores. The game does a lot right, but has some genuine flaws, primarily from the fact that Dark Souls was never actually finished. 9 and 8 are more valid, though. You could give it 10 and say its flaws are mostly able to be looked over. But if 10 means you consider it perfect... well that's wrong. And going the other way - 7/10 is a... fairly accurate score. I can understand that, and at least you can still admit it's good. But anything lower and it becomes less and less accurate... as well as being less and less objective. Aaand my tl;dr was almost as long as my initial post lol.
-
Well said! I’m not sure if I agree completely, though. I still feel like a 3/10 for a game being given 10/10s can be perfectly valid, if not at all reliable, simply because what people consider flaws vary from person to person.
-
Ahh, well, that's what I mean about confusion. Like, I know a lot of people dislike turn based combat, and I understand why they feel that way. But a game being turn based isn't a flaw - it's a design decision. That's where it becomes personal preference vs genuine flaws. It's not necessarily both.
-
For sure. It can be a difficult line to draw, though. A game feeling weighty and slow could be interpreted as clunky, but it could also be a completely intentional choice for aesthetic.
-
Edited by epicperon: 10/15/2019 6:55:34 PMThe only thing I’m criticizing about BotW is the apparent lack of direction in the game. Skyrim explicitly gave me things to do. BotW expects me to wander aimlessly until I find those things myself. Wandering aimlessly with no objective bores me personally.
-
Breath of the Wild wants you to make your own decisions, on your own terms, at your own pace. If you didn't like that about it, I don't know what to say other than, the game was never going to be for you. But that single factor doesn't make it overrated because it isn't a flaw - it's a design decision. Regardless, my initial comment was related to usual criticisms I see of BotW, rather than specifically yours.
-
It being overrated is my opinion. I don’t see the appeal of a game that forces you to figure out everything on your own. I guess it isn’t for me
-
From my personal account, the quality that makes Skyrim superior to most other games is the implementation of the RPG element and the character of so many interesting quests. I enjoy the power climb you can achieve in Skyrim. They have so many unique and interesting items that can completely and entirely change your play style. The Daedric weapons are some of the best examples of this. You could build a whole setup around Sheogath’s staff. Moreover, the skill tree’s expensiveness lends itself to this interest. The depth of each tree and the interesting possibilities of combinations makes the game that much more depth. I personally enjoy games that allow you to grow in power. Moreover, the quests in Skyrim can be utterly fascinating. Take the Sanguine Rose quest for example. Your characters gets drunk, marries a witch, gives someone’s goat away to a giant and it all turns out it was the meddling of a deity. Furthermore, take the thieves guild quest. It’s a interesting tale that is filled with unique characters. Skyrim’s a game that you can play 100 times over, and do it different each time. I’ve only ever watched gameplay of BoTW however, so I resign my opinion to the realm of a spectator. [spoiler]I’m Todd Howard and I approve this message. [/spoiler]
-
[quote]From my personal account, the quality that makes Skyrim superior to most other games is the implementation of the RPG element[/quote] Except Skyrim doesn't do that at all well. In fact, Skyrim BARELY counts as an RPG. Its levelling and upgrading systems are hollow and overly simplified at best. If the quality that makes it "superior to most other games" is its RPG mechanics, then it's actually inferior to most other games because there are plenty of games with better RPG systems - including the open world variety. [quote]and the character of so many interesting quests.[/quote] To each their own, with this one. None of the side quests had particularly great writing, and the gameplay aspect of them suffered from the same issues Bethesda games always do. Ultimately Skyrim is the primary example of quantity over quality in triple A gaming, and doesn't do anything new, interesting, boundary breaking or, really, anything praise worthy at all. Its only arguable benefit is its accessible simplicity.
-
Edited by Psyntifik: 10/15/2019 6:26:13 PM[quote]I enjoy the power climb you can achieve in Skyrim.[/quote] More like a sprint. I became literally god that killed a dragon while wearing my undies in just a few hours of playing. Nothing felt dangerous, and I could do anything I wanted. This didn't make the game enjoyable for me at all. [quote]Moreover, the skill tree’s expensiveness lends itself to this interest[/quote] You're overselling this. These skills are predominantly damage increases, reduced magika costs, or being able to affect higher level enemies etc. [quote]Moreover, the quests in Skyrim can be utterly fascinating.[/quote] To each their own. I found them to be barebones, uninspiring, and doing the bare minimum to pass as as a storyline. Take the Rose quest you brought up, it literally ends with a "roll credits" moment that leaves you aimlessly wondering to the next trigger. The worst offender is how the game handles the assassination of an emperor, or the resolution of the civil war. [quote]Skyrim’s a game that you can play 100 times over, and do it different each time.[/quote] Again, it feels like you're overselling here. Playing the game all over again, but this time using a combat build instead of a magic one, or going to Riften before Solitude isn't anything to write home about. The game doesn't accommodate these playthroughs any differently or throw any new experiences at you because of it. While you didn't explicitly say that, that always seems to be what people are getting at when they say you can play the game multiple times. Like I said, to each their own, but I feel Ghost is right in saying that Skyrim is heavily flawed, and nothing you've brought up in your post was a solid argument to the contrary.
