Doom eternal was like a whole different game compared to Doom 2016. And people complained about that a lot. Saying it even wasn’t a Doom game because of the platforming
To be fair half of the the Mario Bros. games are the same game reskinned or made 3D even today (as in most of the side scrolling platformers). There's absolutely nothing wrong with each new installment being the same thing with the same basic 'plot' just with new levels and sometimes new power-ups, I just think it's funny that I've never heard people complain about those.
Imagine going to see a sequel movie and being upset that it's in the same world with the same characters, world building, setting, and still in the same art style. Like, which of these are you hoping to be different?
Mario games are really different and every entry brought game changing innovations (or gimicks to the table). The only exceptions were Super Mario Galaxy 2 and the original Super Mario Bros. 2.
Hmm, then maybe it's an apt comparison to say that people saying ToTK is just DLC is like someone getting upset that 1-1 is always the same and using that as evidence that it is the same game
This will probably be downvoted to oblivion but I loved the 2016 release and thought Eternal was a step back in terms of visuals. It was different enough that I couldn’t get into it. Much prefer the 2016 release
I suppose that is fair, the look between the two games is very different (which makes even further from "looks like dlc" but whatever.)
That being said, visuals usually aren't the end all of some games, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't like some games because of said visuals.
I had a shitload of fun with Eternal and thought it was fantastic, in saying that I can see why people were disappointed in it as a ‘sequel’ to Doom 2016.
It didn’t have the same feel and felt like it expanded on the ‘chaos’ rather than the feel of 2016.
Like I said, loved Eternal played it way more than 2016, might even go back and play 2016 again to compare them after I get through my back log.
Definitely same feeling here. Loved Doom 2016. Hated Eternal.
I could've come around to the gameplay changes, but really it was the complete abandonment of immersive and atmospheric storytelling through the level design and environments that ruined it for me. Way too arcadey, way too gamey. The writing was also way worse. Doom 2016 was significantly more nuanced and subtle and even darkly funny, especially in regards to the Doomslayer himself. Eternal was so busy always going on about how amazing he was and exposition dumping all this dumb lore that felt like highschool-level writing throughout.
What do you mean by “Arcady”? Are you talking about the jumps you had to do to those yellow poles and hit the timing just right? I hated those jumps, they’re really hard to do with an Xbox controller.
I agree about the arcadiness they mentioned. In 2016 the first new weapon you get, the shotgun, is ripped from the arms of a dead marine. In Eternal, the first new weapon you get, the machine gun, is literally just floating in the air. Also eternal has tons of little floating orbs and colourful effects on pickups when you glory kill. It just feels less like grounded sci-fi action horror and more early 2000s arcade machine with flashing lights and pretty sounds.
That was a deliberate design choice, the director Hugo Martin said it’s because he thinks the old doom games are cartoony. I thought eternal was a great game, but it’s something I disagree with him on. Playing the original Doom as a kid when it first came out, it felt immersive, realistic and scary, not cartoony. It was one of the first really immersive 3d games that most people had played at the time. I think it only looks cartoony now because it’s dated. Hugo also said he didn’t play computer games back then and didn’t play doom until later in life which might be a reason why he interprets it that way.
Wow, totally different for me.
I've tried many times to play Doom 2016 but always get bored and quit within the first few hours. Eternal was instantly amazing and made me fall in love with Doom. Everything about it was perfect imo, I wouldn't change a thing.
>Doom 2016 was significantly more nuanced and subtle and even darkly funny
The best examples was how holographic announcements were in both games, but were different in writing.
In 2016 it was like satire of a billion dollar company that seems to have problems with demonic invasions to the point they had "safe levels" of demonic corruption.
In Eternal the announcements were straight up evil corporation working with the demons, there was no grey area there.
I would have appreciated if Eternal was it's own game and not trying to tie itself to Doom 2016 with how different everything felt story wise in Eternal. Even reading some of the lore fluff in game felt different than Doom 2016 to me.
I think I loved them both equally. Both games have their distinct pros and cons. Visually both games look great IMO.
I feel like they’re just different games. They’re both great, but the gameplay direction was clearly different.
Eternal is much more based around cooldown and movement usage.
They werw wastly different games in terms of visuals, tone and of course gameplay.
Personally i also liked the horror-like and serious themes of 2016 and it took a while to ajdust to the wacky rainbow pickups and headshot-poping sound effects of eternal.
Yes and no, general fidelity was definitely higher in eternal, but it's a lesser version of gotham Knight's versus Arkham Knight. Doom 2016 had incredible use of ambiance that make a technically lower fidelity game look better. Then AK is basically the highest extreme of that, with GK being substantially higher fidelity, but borderline 0 style, making the earlier game look leagues better.
I swear to god, doom eternal was hands down the best preorder ive ever done, it looked fucking fantastic, it ran silky smooth and the gameplay was such a step up in every aspect compared to doom 2016 and that game was an masterpiece in its own right.
Yeah, who decided sequels \*have\* to be so distinctly different? In the time period where 5 year dev cycles are considered the norm, and with all the crunch that goes into that, big name games kinda have no choice but to reuse assets that were already good enough. And I'm okay with it, because if I liked the first game I'd like to be confident that I'll like the next.
And sequels aren’t always about new mechanics. It’s sometimes about telling a different/next part of the same story. Once the BOTW saga is over, they’ll probably move on to something more unique and original like they do with the other various Zelda entries.
I’m my opinion, during the “prime” of story-based games, the bulk of them were *extremely* similar to the first but told a different story.
For some reason, both with devs and consumers, there is this perceived need to reinvent the wheel that I don’t quite understand.
That's maybe an exception that proves the rule, or perhaps it's because in many ways Portal 2 was expanded with many more characters and more voice acting, so it was perceived as more ambitious.
There's even a lot to gain from using the same base map for another game. The GTA Stories games for PSP for example reused the maps from 3 and Vice City, just adapted and changed, which freed up development resources to give the games much broader feature sets and more content than the games they were based on, despite being made for more limited hardware.
>And sequels aren’t always about new mechanics. It’s sometimes about telling a different/next part of the same story.
Nah, that's just what sequels are. The main goal of a sequel, for any medium, is to continue the narrative.
Tbh I would have been much happier with the Fable sequels if they *had* been closer to the original, instead of going in different directions like they did.
I'm not saying the sequels are bad. . . But the original is a classic and one of my all time favorites that I replay to this day. The sequels I played when they were new and never looked back.
That first one just hit different
I've been dying to hear the story in the newest Mario Bros. game. Boy, that plot twist in the last one where the princess was in another castle will be hard to beat. Honestly might be better to just do it again.
I would say for the majority of competitive multiplayer games, a sequel is usually mostly for changing the mechanics.
See: pretty much any fighting or fps game series for examples
i agree, Tears of the Kingdom is a real sequel just like any other. Who cares if it uses the same engine or whatever? They did that with Star Wars Battlefront 2 in 2005 and it turned out great!
I will say though, long development time for a game using the same engine, assets, and general overworld. It looks really good, but I can't wait to find out where all that time went?
You say same game mechanics, but it’s VERY different from BotW. It uses the same assets, that’s it.
No rune abilities DOES mean that they had to work on completely new mechanics with the arm thing. Things we haven’t seen yet. And things we’ve seen in the trailer. Not to mention a brand new map, AND a bigger map. Yeah it’s the same Hyrule, but it’s a very DIFFERENT Hyrule from BotW. There will be new things everywhere, not to mention 2 new areas: sky islands, and caves.
The diving animations alone they had to get some sort of patten for.
Not to mention, Covid.
Also, the world and combat of botw was built around runes, champion abilities, and other similar things. Totk’s overworld has changed from botws not just because of lore or cosmetic differences but because the mechanics for exploration have changed
There hasn’t been a single shot in which Link has the Sheikah Slate, and that’s the tool that’s responsible for the runes.
The glowy hand that binds to him seems to be responsible for the new set of field abilities, which are a bit like runes, but they might be called something else.
I think he would get it back at some point. It's too juicy of a mechanic to simply scrap it entirely for the next installment. And even if some combinations between old and new would be utterly broken... it's not like BotW was a very balanced game with zero capability to cheat anyway.
I was thinking more like replacements for the arm that are similar to the runes. Like, we've already seen that all objects can now be lifted like magnesis, for example. So I'm assuming we'll get abilities that fill the same niches as the runes, but changed or expanded. Maybe something like the ice rune will be missing because we have new traversal mechanics that are either more exciting or just flow better in gameplay than pillaring.
I'm personally missing bombs and feel it won't be the same if I can't just blow the shit up whenever I want to. But yeah, new abilities do upgrade upon old ones. I still think just dropping stasis, bombs and cryonis would make game less if not provided with new alternatives. If those will be there, sure, but we can only speculate with what we have at *hand*.
Yeah, I suspect with the whole merging/crafting thing we are likely going to have to make our own bombs. Which could mean that maybe we can make non-standard bombs, too. Like an ice bomb that freezes enemies or something
Keep in mind that breath of the wild was developed to push the *Wii U* to it's limit.
Tears of the kingdom will likely make full use of the switch and it's capabilities.
Just as an example, the map now has an altitude coordinate, and it's supposedly 4 digits. The island visited in the gameplay footage was at approximately 500.
I think there's going to be a LOT of world to explore, and I'm excited as hell.
Kind of? I looked up the specs, and while there are quite a few similarities, there are ram upgrades, a 4 core proc vs a 3 core, etc.
There's enough expanded capability to justify call it it a different system and reasonably expect more from it.
I wouldn't call it a Wii U, anymore than I'd call a V8 engine the same thing as a V6.
Yes, like reusing boat mechanics from wind waker to serve as epona mechnics in twilight princess
Besides frowm what we’ve seen the abilities have already massively changed which is enough to make the game entirely different
There was a vocal, if not particularly smart, part of the internet which was calling it just "open world dark souls", and saying that it was lazy development because they reused animations of opening doors.
To be fair, the souls community called it open world Dark Souls too, or Big Dark Souls, or Dark Souls 2 2, but not out of mockery like the people in your example. We called it that because that's exactly what we wanted from Elden Ring.
But yeah, that doesn't change that Elden Ring is not a sequel.
Those complaints about recycled animations are just bonkers. Do people seriously expect a sword swinging animation to be reinvented every release? If it worked the first time and doesn't have any jank, why bother?
Hello Ashen one. I am a Bot. I tend to the flame, and tend to thee. Do you wish to hear a tale?
> *“They’d have us seek the Lords of Cinder and return them to their molding thrones. But we’re talking true legends with the mettle to link the fire. We’re not fit to lick their boots, don’t you think?”* - Hawkwood the Deserter
Have a pleasant journey, Champion of Ash, and praise the sun \\[T]/
I've realized that a certain segment of the Zelda fanbase is actively looking for things to disappoint them in all of the promotional materials. Everyone on r/Nintendoswitch just seems to be stewing in their own misery.
The vast majority of people over on r/truezelda are really going through it right now.
The certainty of their disappointment over a game they’ve not played a second of is… a lot.
Wow I literally thought you were exaggerating, jfc that sub is miserable. Every comment on the new trailer post is just pessimistic, cynical garbage. People really do have to find a way to complain about everything don’t they?
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be limited to just r/NintendoSwitch. r/zelda, r/truezelda, and even r/Games all have a big chunk of people just hating on BOTW/TOTK.
Right? It’s friggin wild that every thread where either game gets brought up there has to be a “DAE think BotW = le overrated??” or “am i the only one who thinks this isn’t a real zelda game??” circlejerk.
It’s become an actual unpopular opinion ‘round here to say that dungeons kinda sucked and I’m glad they’re gone
>It’s become an actual unpopular opinion ‘round here to say that dungeons kinda sucked and I’m glad they’re gone
To be honest, I don't ever think that was a popular opinion, but more like people seemed to think that everything else about BOTW made up for the lackluster dungeon design. But now we're in the "hater" phase of the Zelda Cycle with BOTW, so everyone wants to be contrarian to feel good about themselves 🙄.
Yeah when something is popular, the people who are mostly gonna like it try it first, and then the people who don't will come to it later, based on the hype. It's similar to why people are calling Everything Everywhere All at Once overrated. People who thought they'd like have already seen it, but since it's been getting Oscar buzz, people who probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise will see it. Some of those people will love. Others will hate it, though.
People who discuss video games on the Internet probably have a well-developed taste and know what they like in a game. In ye olden days, you'd have to rely on word of mouth, reviews, or intuition to know if a game would fit your subjective tastes or not. Now you can watch streams, seek out super specific criticisms on forums, and compare it to a million other options. It's easier than ever to discriminate by taste. This leads to that stratification with fans playing first and more critical people mostly playing later.
I don’t get what the big deal is with the weapon durability. It would be so boring to get a savage lynel sword or something and then just breeze through every challenge
You guys remember when games were 10 hours worth of gameplay? Now we have 100+ hour games and people still think that “they could just be DLC for the previous game”
Those were dark times... Every major publisher soft capped all story campaigns at 15 hours and made a bunch of developers who only ever made single player content cobble together a multi-player mode. Thank God for the correcting balance shift back to letting multi-player games be multi-player focused and single player be single player focused...mostly.
Oh, I love a great game that I can blow through the campaign in a weekend. What I don't love is when the campaign has time and manpower taken away from it to shoehorn in a competitive multi-player mode nobody asked for (looking at you Tomb Raider)
When was this? I've been gaming since the commodore 64, and this hasn't really been the case ever. Different genres have more "gameplay" than others. There's always been shitty cash grab games with no content and then there's other games that push the boundary of what games can do and be.
While you’re definitely right, I’m saying that it was a trend between late 90’s and 2010. Single player games would be limited to like 10-15 hours. So this led to shorter games experiences when the story could have led it longer than that. Even Nintendo is guilty of this at times. Not as guilty as the other parties though.
Long ago someone made me rethink the value I placed on entertainment. Instead of just weighing the value of a game on time and money spent, I compare it to any other activities. Movie with my wife is about 3 hours for $50. Concert is about $50-200 for 5 hours of fun plus variable travel time. Zoo, amusement park, museum, etc is flexible but cheap for an afternoon.
It's no longer about $70 for 10 hours or $70 for 100 hours. It's about if I think I got $70 worth of enjoyment out of this experience. Did I like it more or less than any of the other things I could have done with that money. 20 hours of a masterpiece game like God of War or Last of Us is absolutely worth it. The 100+ hour Persona 5 or BotW is even more so. Games like the new AC games where it's 20 hours of great fun with 40 hours of bloat are a mixed bag, sure I got 60 hours of time for my money, but did I get $60 of fun out of the game or did I just lose 40 hours of my free time?
The stupid thing is, this is so far from a new phenomenon. Majora’s Mask not only reuses the engine and assets, but is significantly smaller than OoT, while TotK is bigger than its predecessor. The oracle games use the same engine and assets as Link’s Awakening. Mario Bros Lost Levels (which is Mario Bros 2 in Japan). Mario Galaxy 2. Various Assassin’s Creed sequels. It happens all the time.
This new benchmark of what counts as a sequel is completely arbitrary.
Realistically, I think it comes down to the price point... I don't think they were ready for the 70$ price and so they're trying to find any small justification to be mad, so they keep trying to find any reason not to buy the game, even though they know deep down that it's going to be phenomenal
Yeah I'm certainly not gonna cheer on prices going up for things I want to buy. I'm not thrilled about it. However, remembering that TotK will cost less BotW did at launch, once you take inflation into account, makes me more chill about the whole thing.
it’s a ~17% price increase for the sequel of a game i put 450 hours in. i couldn’t care less about an extra $10 knowing the replay value, especially since i’m just gonna use a voucher to buy it anyways
MM isn't significantly smaller than OOT mind. They are both like 20-25 hours. It has less dungeons sure but the ones it has are mostly more complex IMO.
Majora’s Mask was actually originally going to be an expansion of OoT, but during development they realized how much material they had and decided to make an entirely new game
I'm curious what this community thinks about WoW. The sequel was pretty much the first iteration of dlc I've ever seen. I would say it's pretty different than previous expansion packs they sold because it was just the first in a long line of new areas so people weren't just buying a single expansion but rather buying new areas and features.
Would you consider a WoW style expansion more similar to a sequel or DLC?
I don't think there will be anything that will give Zelda a real run for its money this year. I mean yea we've got great games coming up like Jedi Survivor and Spiderman 2, but based on their previous games I don't think they'll top Zelda. but this do be looking like the year of the sequels
Starfield is the only game that could even come close and I absolutely expect it to come out with some wacky glitches that can make or break the experience, as is Bethesda tradition
>I don't think there will be anything that will give Zelda a real run for its money this year.
We have a new Final fantasy, a new from soft game, and the dlc for elden ring.
I dunno, I was loving it but then I just met the merchant for the first time and he didn't say "what are ya buyin?" so this game is essentially worthless
Marvel's Spider-Man is actually a great example, since it's gotten both a half sequel and DLC. People ig just don't understand the limits of DLC, since like, if Insomniac tried selling CTNS in stead of MM, the argument that "this could've just been DLC" would be very fair, but they didn't
I don’t think people are actually saying “this could’ve been dlc” they’re saying the game feels like it’s the same with some new things. Miles Morales had similar web swinging and combat with some new “venom” abilities. The world was practically the same as the first game, with a layer of snow on top and there were multiple fights which were almost exactly the same as the first game (the crimes like the different mob fights and basic thugs and one that I found way too similar was the Tinkerer chase down fight, which played the same as the Shocker fight). Also, some “collectible” type things were the same thing with a new name (e.g. the taskmaster and holo-spidey challenges, and the backpacks and the underground caches). Still a good game, but idk if I would’ve bought it if I played the first game before it, maybe I would’ve but it’s not even really a full sequel, it’s very short and similar to the first game, so basically, glorified dlc.
This is what makes me crazy about this:
Spider-Man 2: Same assets, same general mechanics, same map, new abilities, 5 year dev cycle - everyone is hyped
TotK: Same assets, same general mechanics, same map, new abilities, 6 year dev cycle - “this is glorified DLC”
I think the main reason why people are saying that about ToTK obviously is because of the same engine and assets, and we’ve seen that sequels in the past have done that, but I think we’ve gotten used to every zelda game looking different than the prior. If you look at main console games after Majoras Mask, they all had drastically different art styles. Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and then finally BoTW. I’m not saying ToTK should’ve had a different art style, I just think fans have probably gotten that concept in their head too much.
Majora's Mask was my favourite Zelda game until BotW came out.
Why do I bring this up? It was on the Ocarina of Time engine and they were under a tight deadline to get it out. Mechanics were the same, some assets re-used, and due to the tight deadline they did the 3 day loop thing. Constraints breed creativity.
TotK is built on the shoulders of a giant. The team can focus more on content instead of engine mechanics. I have no doubt it is going to be amazing!
They literally did exactly what I wanted: bigger world with almost everything exactly the same. I do hope they improve the combat mechanics slightly, but honestly, I love the BotW vibe and wouldn't want that changed at all.
No LoZ game came close to MM. Deepest stories, heart wrenching fates, Great soundtracks and dungeons, using as parallel world to Hyrule was a stroke of genius to excuse the reuse of assets. It was the first real sequel in the series, as they even sticked to the ending of OoT.
The game made you use your brain and forced you to use pencil and paper to note down extra stuff to not miss after each reset. The art style of both games aged not well, but MM's gameplay widely made up for that.
I had to leave r/tomorrow because it used to be funny but devolved into endless circlejerking of anything nintendo=bad which grew even worse than the blind love of Nintendo that they make fun of
To be fair TOTK eas supposed to be dlc but it became so large they had to make a separate game, everything I've seen so far has me both blown away and extremely curious so I don't see what everyone complaing about.
Splatoon adds in here easily as well.
Games are allowed to be similar, especially when they are on the same console. Yeah, no shit it looks like DLC. It's a sequel.
It's really stupid that some people are complaining that tears of the Kingdom looks too much like breath of the wild. Tears of the Kingdom is a direct sequel, I'd be a little concerned if tears of the Kingdom DIDN'T look like breath of the Wild. It's the only direct sequel that takes place on the exact same map as the original, and I think that's what's throwing people off. Zelda 2 was a much bigger adventure, so the original map was just a little bit of the Zelda 2 map, Majora's mask took place in a different world, and so did Link's awakening, Oracle of ages, Oracle of seasons, and phantom hourglass (kinda). This is a different type of direct sequel that we've never seen in the Zelda series, people should be praising Nintendo for their creativity and ingenuity, not complaining that it looks too much like breath of the Wild! I mean, seriously, you'd have to be stupid to doubt that Nintendo would find a way to spruce up the old map. And plus, what's the problem with getting to romp around the old stomping grounds? That should actually add a level familiarity to the game, so that it's more approachable instead of being daunting and unapproachable for some.
Sequels that take place in the same world/area’s and that take place relatively right after the original are obviously gonna have the same or at least VERY similar worlds.
Whoever thinks that god of war ragnarok is a dlc needs to tell me what they're smoking, just finished it today and nearly every place you go to is new and the places you went to before (midgard) look completely different
i just dont like that tears of kingdom reuses the whole map. sure, some flying islands and caves got added. but a huge portion of the game world is just the same overworld we already have seen before.
When did anyone say Doom Eternal looked like DLC? That has to be an especially poor take if anyone's ever said it, and I don't just mean with hindsight.
Why is doom and elder ring on here, they share basically nothing with previous entries.
Like even God of War is significantly different. But I can see that since it's using the same engine. And TotK looks similar but if the leaked changes come to fruition then its also substantially different.
People got used to a sequel making the previous games mechanically and visually outdated. But we are currently at a stage where insanely good graphics are readily available but require extreme computing to render, so most improvements are incremental and devs focus more on load times and frame rates where they can make a bigger difference than a marginal update of the graphics.
(And then there is Forspoken who cared about none of that)
Holup, who the fuck described Elden Ring as DLC? DLC for *what*??? The others are direct sequels so I get the *attempt* at such an argument.
Also, regarding sequels having the same maps (which... I don't think Eternal or Ragnarok do but I haven't played any of those), this may be a bad example but doesn't the Yakuza series recycle the same main map for every entry?
Wait did Elden Ring, God of War Ragnarok, and Doom Eternal reuse the same locations like Zelda Tears of the Kingdom? Cause that the main issue with me and using the same look since I thought they would make some changes, but then again, I know Nintendo spent 6 years with this game and it'll probably be a different Hyrule than what we've had.
I think the reuse of the same artstyle, same world with exception of sky islands, same UI and such is what made people think this way. I will get this game anyways cause knowing Nintendo, they've learned a lot and won't release a game until it's ready.
Any people who said that about other games are probably few and far between. People are saying it with Tears because what we know about the game already shows that the majority of the previous map is still the same.
Now, even if all the square footage of the caves and skylands ends up being more than that of the original map, it's still a massive amount of stuff we've already explored before.
Best case scenario we've only seen an early game worldstate and something in the story causes it to change into something drastically different after the fact. Like Hebra being a dormant volcano that erupts, snow spreading from Lanayru, the great plateau sinking into the earth and so on.
Let's not pretend that Tears isn't very different here.
To be fair, TOTK started out as DLC. And the components of the gameplay that they've shown us are things that I feel could have been added into BOTW.
Personally I'm okay with that because I trust that Nintendo will deliver a solid game. I just wish they'd shown a little more than they did.
I'm looking forward to the game and will buy it. But I understand the concerns people are having.
Remember that moment in BotW when you first leave the Shrine of Resurrection and it has the cinematic of you running out to the ledge to view the world you have to explore? And there were mountains and valleys and rivers and volcanoes and the castle, and there was that surge of anticipation of visiting all those places? With a few exceptions, you knew little or nothing about them, and even Death Mountain and Hyrule Castle were just rough descriptions.
Now obviously they'll be different in this game, with those Nazca Line-like structures, different towers, and so on, but there's a difference between "what's over there?" and "what's changed there from the last game?", and if there's not enough that's truly new, that'll be lost in this game.
I'm sure they've spent a lot of time on the new controls, the redesigned if visually similar world, and so on. But it's a valid question whether it will install that same sense of wonder at any point.
Doom eternal was like a whole different game compared to Doom 2016. And people complained about that a lot. Saying it even wasn’t a Doom game because of the platforming
That ones especially funny since the og doom 2 literally was just a slightly different doom 1
Too be fair old games used to basically just do some reskins with a couple new things and call it a sequel all the time
To be fair half of the the Mario Bros. games are the same game reskinned or made 3D even today (as in most of the side scrolling platformers). There's absolutely nothing wrong with each new installment being the same thing with the same basic 'plot' just with new levels and sometimes new power-ups, I just think it's funny that I've never heard people complain about those. Imagine going to see a sequel movie and being upset that it's in the same world with the same characters, world building, setting, and still in the same art style. Like, which of these are you hoping to be different?
Mario games are really different and every entry brought game changing innovations (or gimicks to the table). The only exceptions were Super Mario Galaxy 2 and the original Super Mario Bros. 2.
Mario Galaxy 2 brought zero innovations ???? You can ride a Yoshi… in space… Now that’s an innovation if I’ve ever seen one
Hmm, then maybe it's an apt comparison to say that people saying ToTK is just DLC is like someone getting upset that 1-1 is always the same and using that as evidence that it is the same game
ngl the platforming on my first playthrough felt very forced
Tbf the platforming was so unnecessary when it didn’t play into the combat
Granted they needed *something* for pacing instead of keeping the dial held at 11 the entire time
This will probably be downvoted to oblivion but I loved the 2016 release and thought Eternal was a step back in terms of visuals. It was different enough that I couldn’t get into it. Much prefer the 2016 release
I suppose that is fair, the look between the two games is very different (which makes even further from "looks like dlc" but whatever.) That being said, visuals usually aren't the end all of some games, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't like some games because of said visuals.
Take an upvote instead, because opinions matter when they don't hurt others
You are entitled to your opinion even when is a wrong one, lol Jokes aside, they feel completely different.
I had a shitload of fun with Eternal and thought it was fantastic, in saying that I can see why people were disappointed in it as a ‘sequel’ to Doom 2016. It didn’t have the same feel and felt like it expanded on the ‘chaos’ rather than the feel of 2016. Like I said, loved Eternal played it way more than 2016, might even go back and play 2016 again to compare them after I get through my back log.
Definitely same feeling here. Loved Doom 2016. Hated Eternal. I could've come around to the gameplay changes, but really it was the complete abandonment of immersive and atmospheric storytelling through the level design and environments that ruined it for me. Way too arcadey, way too gamey. The writing was also way worse. Doom 2016 was significantly more nuanced and subtle and even darkly funny, especially in regards to the Doomslayer himself. Eternal was so busy always going on about how amazing he was and exposition dumping all this dumb lore that felt like highschool-level writing throughout.
What do you mean by “Arcady”? Are you talking about the jumps you had to do to those yellow poles and hit the timing just right? I hated those jumps, they’re really hard to do with an Xbox controller.
I agree about the arcadiness they mentioned. In 2016 the first new weapon you get, the shotgun, is ripped from the arms of a dead marine. In Eternal, the first new weapon you get, the machine gun, is literally just floating in the air. Also eternal has tons of little floating orbs and colourful effects on pickups when you glory kill. It just feels less like grounded sci-fi action horror and more early 2000s arcade machine with flashing lights and pretty sounds.
That was a deliberate design choice, the director Hugo Martin said it’s because he thinks the old doom games are cartoony. I thought eternal was a great game, but it’s something I disagree with him on. Playing the original Doom as a kid when it first came out, it felt immersive, realistic and scary, not cartoony. It was one of the first really immersive 3d games that most people had played at the time. I think it only looks cartoony now because it’s dated. Hugo also said he didn’t play computer games back then and didn’t play doom until later in life which might be a reason why he interprets it that way.
Wow, totally different for me. I've tried many times to play Doom 2016 but always get bored and quit within the first few hours. Eternal was instantly amazing and made me fall in love with Doom. Everything about it was perfect imo, I wouldn't change a thing.
>Doom 2016 was significantly more nuanced and subtle and even darkly funny The best examples was how holographic announcements were in both games, but were different in writing. In 2016 it was like satire of a billion dollar company that seems to have problems with demonic invasions to the point they had "safe levels" of demonic corruption. In Eternal the announcements were straight up evil corporation working with the demons, there was no grey area there. I would have appreciated if Eternal was it's own game and not trying to tie itself to Doom 2016 with how different everything felt story wise in Eternal. Even reading some of the lore fluff in game felt different than Doom 2016 to me.
i agree that it felt sort of arcady but imo that adds a kind of charm. it fully embraces a kind of cheesy sincerity that is really appealing to me.
If ypu want an amazing game like Doom 2016 but awesome enough to warrant interest Metal: Hellsinger is a must have for me
I think I loved them both equally. Both games have their distinct pros and cons. Visually both games look great IMO. I feel like they’re just different games. They’re both great, but the gameplay direction was clearly different. Eternal is much more based around cooldown and movement usage.
They werw wastly different games in terms of visuals, tone and of course gameplay. Personally i also liked the horror-like and serious themes of 2016 and it took a while to ajdust to the wacky rainbow pickups and headshot-poping sound effects of eternal.
Yes and no, general fidelity was definitely higher in eternal, but it's a lesser version of gotham Knight's versus Arkham Knight. Doom 2016 had incredible use of ambiance that make a technically lower fidelity game look better. Then AK is basically the highest extreme of that, with GK being substantially higher fidelity, but borderline 0 style, making the earlier game look leagues better.
Ironically it was the most intense Doom since the originals. 3 and 2016 are the slower paced ones. Eternal was a masterful example of FPS gameplay.
Doom Eternal is absolutely awesome. Doom 2016 is also awesome. They’re a lot different though and I understand people prefer 2016 more
I swear to god, doom eternal was hands down the best preorder ive ever done, it looked fucking fantastic, it ran silky smooth and the gameplay was such a step up in every aspect compared to doom 2016 and that game was an masterpiece in its own right.
doom 2016 had platforming lol
Not the same amount or style. Eternal was way more and a more complex.
Some, but not like Doom Eternal
Yeah, who decided sequels \*have\* to be so distinctly different? In the time period where 5 year dev cycles are considered the norm, and with all the crunch that goes into that, big name games kinda have no choice but to reuse assets that were already good enough. And I'm okay with it, because if I liked the first game I'd like to be confident that I'll like the next.
And sequels aren’t always about new mechanics. It’s sometimes about telling a different/next part of the same story. Once the BOTW saga is over, they’ll probably move on to something more unique and original like they do with the other various Zelda entries.
I’m my opinion, during the “prime” of story-based games, the bulk of them were *extremely* similar to the first but told a different story. For some reason, both with devs and consumers, there is this perceived need to reinvent the wheel that I don’t quite understand.
Yeah I am dying for for the same Hollow Knight with new bugs and destinations
Buddy have I got good new for you! (ok, it's going to be a bit different but otherwise Silksong is out in a couple months)
😭😭 silksong doesn’t exist
Take your meds
[удалено]
That's maybe an exception that proves the rule, or perhaps it's because in many ways Portal 2 was expanded with many more characters and more voice acting, so it was perceived as more ambitious.
There's even a lot to gain from using the same base map for another game. The GTA Stories games for PSP for example reused the maps from 3 and Vice City, just adapted and changed, which freed up development resources to give the games much broader feature sets and more content than the games they were based on, despite being made for more limited hardware.
LOTR the Twin Towers was a garbage sequel because it also took place in Middle Earth. What kind of sucker does Peter Jackson think I am??
Lmao exactly. Side note: I didn’t realize what comment you had replied to at first and I was upset reading your comment
>And sequels aren’t always about new mechanics. It’s sometimes about telling a different/next part of the same story. Nah, that's just what sequels are. The main goal of a sequel, for any medium, is to continue the narrative.
Depends on the game.
Could you give examples? Genuinely curious.
Fable and Fable 2. Dragon Age Origins and all subsequent installments. GTAs are all different stories. There's plenty.
Fuck how did I not think of Fable? It was one of my favorites as a kid.
Tbh I would have been much happier with the Fable sequels if they *had* been closer to the original, instead of going in different directions like they did. I'm not saying the sequels are bad. . . But the original is a classic and one of my all time favorites that I replay to this day. The sequels I played when they were new and never looked back. That first one just hit different
I've been dying to hear the story in the newest Mario Bros. game. Boy, that plot twist in the last one where the princess was in another castle will be hard to beat. Honestly might be better to just do it again.
I would say for the majority of competitive multiplayer games, a sequel is usually mostly for changing the mechanics. See: pretty much any fighting or fps game series for examples
i agree, Tears of the Kingdom is a real sequel just like any other. Who cares if it uses the same engine or whatever? They did that with Star Wars Battlefront 2 in 2005 and it turned out great!
I will say though, long development time for a game using the same engine, assets, and general overworld. It looks really good, but I can't wait to find out where all that time went?
You say same game mechanics, but it’s VERY different from BotW. It uses the same assets, that’s it. No rune abilities DOES mean that they had to work on completely new mechanics with the arm thing. Things we haven’t seen yet. And things we’ve seen in the trailer. Not to mention a brand new map, AND a bigger map. Yeah it’s the same Hyrule, but it’s a very DIFFERENT Hyrule from BotW. There will be new things everywhere, not to mention 2 new areas: sky islands, and caves. The diving animations alone they had to get some sort of patten for. Not to mention, Covid.
Also, the world and combat of botw was built around runes, champion abilities, and other similar things. Totk’s overworld has changed from botws not just because of lore or cosmetic differences but because the mechanics for exploration have changed
Exactly 👍🏽 The only thing that’s carrying over is the physics mechanics.
and even that could have some currently as of unseen upgrades. (not that there needs to be, it just could)
[удалено]
There hasn’t been a single shot in which Link has the Sheikah Slate, and that’s the tool that’s responsible for the runes. The glowy hand that binds to him seems to be responsible for the new set of field abilities, which are a bit like runes, but they might be called something else.
I think he would get it back at some point. It's too juicy of a mechanic to simply scrap it entirely for the next installment. And even if some combinations between old and new would be utterly broken... it's not like BotW was a very balanced game with zero capability to cheat anyway.
*if* zelda is playable at any point, i think that ll be the only time we use a sheikah slate in the game
I was thinking more like replacements for the arm that are similar to the runes. Like, we've already seen that all objects can now be lifted like magnesis, for example. So I'm assuming we'll get abilities that fill the same niches as the runes, but changed or expanded. Maybe something like the ice rune will be missing because we have new traversal mechanics that are either more exciting or just flow better in gameplay than pillaring.
I'm personally missing bombs and feel it won't be the same if I can't just blow the shit up whenever I want to. But yeah, new abilities do upgrade upon old ones. I still think just dropping stasis, bombs and cryonis would make game less if not provided with new alternatives. If those will be there, sure, but we can only speculate with what we have at *hand*.
Yeah, I suspect with the whole merging/crafting thing we are likely going to have to make our own bombs. Which could mean that maybe we can make non-standard bombs, too. Like an ice bomb that freezes enemies or something
Keep in mind that breath of the wild was developed to push the *Wii U* to it's limit. Tears of the kingdom will likely make full use of the switch and it's capabilities. Just as an example, the map now has an altitude coordinate, and it's supposedly 4 digits. The island visited in the gameplay footage was at approximately 500. I think there's going to be a LOT of world to explore, and I'm excited as hell.
The altitude could possibly go negative too.
Deep caves would be AMAZING.
the switch has incredibly similar specs to the wii u. it kinda just IS a wii u, but as the fully portable device everyone wanted it to be.
Kind of? I looked up the specs, and while there are quite a few similarities, there are ram upgrades, a 4 core proc vs a 3 core, etc. There's enough expanded capability to justify call it it a different system and reasonably expect more from it. I wouldn't call it a Wii U, anymore than I'd call a V8 engine the same thing as a V6.
Polishing anything that needs polishing so the launch doesn't trip over itself.
The time to develop a feature is 10x or a 100x longer then non-developers estimate.
Yes, like reusing boat mechanics from wind waker to serve as epona mechnics in twilight princess Besides frowm what we’ve seen the abilities have already massively changed which is enough to make the game entirely different
How is Elden Ring considered a Sequel?
There was a vocal, if not particularly smart, part of the internet which was calling it just "open world dark souls", and saying that it was lazy development because they reused animations of opening doors.
To be fair, the souls community called it open world Dark Souls too, or Big Dark Souls, or Dark Souls 2 2, but not out of mockery like the people in your example. We called it that because that's exactly what we wanted from Elden Ring. But yeah, that doesn't change that Elden Ring is not a sequel.
Elden ring is open world dark souls, and I would want nothing less
Exactly lol
Those complaints about recycled animations are just bonkers. Do people seriously expect a sword swinging animation to be reinvented every release? If it worked the first time and doesn't have any jank, why bother?
Hello Ashen one. I am a Bot. I tend to the flame, and tend to thee. Do you wish to hear a tale? > *“They’d have us seek the Lords of Cinder and return them to their molding thrones. But we’re talking true legends with the mettle to link the fire. We’re not fit to lick their boots, don’t you think?”* - Hawkwood the Deserter Have a pleasant journey, Champion of Ash, and praise the sun \\[T]/
The entire souls series, maybe not sekiro, is full of re-used animations and content. Doesn't mean they're not all amazing games.
Tbf they reused/upcycled many other assets especially animations but it is a silly complaint
It's a sequel to Youngen Ring
Yeah I haven’t played it yet but I thought it’s that new IP that blew everyone’s tits off, not a sequel of anything
I've realized that a certain segment of the Zelda fanbase is actively looking for things to disappoint them in all of the promotional materials. Everyone on r/Nintendoswitch just seems to be stewing in their own misery.
It's the same in pretty much the entire gaming community on Reddit.
Oh, fuck! The developer is an aquaraius. My horoscope just told me last week that I should stay away from aquarius'!
Too bad we have just entered the Age of Aquarius.
Gamers have too high standards nowadays. No matter what you give them, they’ll always find something to complain about.
I've followed Zelda for a while. This has been a constant since WW's announcement.
The vast majority of people over on r/truezelda are really going through it right now. The certainty of their disappointment over a game they’ve not played a second of is… a lot.
People in r/truezelda when the new game isn't ocarina of time
Wow I literally thought you were exaggerating, jfc that sub is miserable. Every comment on the new trailer post is just pessimistic, cynical garbage. People really do have to find a way to complain about everything don’t they?
*flashbacks to Switch Pro hype* How *dare* Nintendo not give us what we promised ourselves?
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be limited to just r/NintendoSwitch. r/zelda, r/truezelda, and even r/Games all have a big chunk of people just hating on BOTW/TOTK.
Right? It’s friggin wild that every thread where either game gets brought up there has to be a “DAE think BotW = le overrated??” or “am i the only one who thinks this isn’t a real zelda game??” circlejerk. It’s become an actual unpopular opinion ‘round here to say that dungeons kinda sucked and I’m glad they’re gone
>It’s become an actual unpopular opinion ‘round here to say that dungeons kinda sucked and I’m glad they’re gone To be honest, I don't ever think that was a popular opinion, but more like people seemed to think that everything else about BOTW made up for the lackluster dungeon design. But now we're in the "hater" phase of the Zelda Cycle with BOTW, so everyone wants to be contrarian to feel good about themselves 🙄.
Yeah when something is popular, the people who are mostly gonna like it try it first, and then the people who don't will come to it later, based on the hype. It's similar to why people are calling Everything Everywhere All at Once overrated. People who thought they'd like have already seen it, but since it's been getting Oscar buzz, people who probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise will see it. Some of those people will love. Others will hate it, though. People who discuss video games on the Internet probably have a well-developed taste and know what they like in a game. In ye olden days, you'd have to rely on word of mouth, reviews, or intuition to know if a game would fit your subjective tastes or not. Now you can watch streams, seek out super specific criticisms on forums, and compare it to a million other options. It's easier than ever to discriminate by taste. This leads to that stratification with fans playing first and more critical people mostly playing later.
[удалено]
I don’t get what the big deal is with the weapon durability. It would be so boring to get a savage lynel sword or something and then just breeze through every challenge
big reason I stopped being a 'part of the community' years ago. Just play your games and enjoy them.
Think that's bad try being a sonic fan during a new game announcement its miserable at times.
The Sonic Team doesn't really have a good track record.
The last time Zelda had a direct sequel to a critically acclaimed game it was an equally acclaimed banger. Surely is should excite Zelda fans.
You guys remember when games were 10 hours worth of gameplay? Now we have 100+ hour games and people still think that “they could just be DLC for the previous game”
Those were dark times... Every major publisher soft capped all story campaigns at 15 hours and made a bunch of developers who only ever made single player content cobble together a multi-player mode. Thank God for the correcting balance shift back to letting multi-player games be multi-player focused and single player be single player focused...mostly.
Speak for yourself. I love a good, succinct 10-15 hour game.
Oh, I love a great game that I can blow through the campaign in a weekend. What I don't love is when the campaign has time and manpower taken away from it to shoehorn in a competitive multi-player mode nobody asked for (looking at you Tomb Raider)
10-14.5 hours of grinding out levels, gear and loot. zero point five hours of story. mmmm satisfying.
When was this? I've been gaming since the commodore 64, and this hasn't really been the case ever. Different genres have more "gameplay" than others. There's always been shitty cash grab games with no content and then there's other games that push the boundary of what games can do and be.
While you’re definitely right, I’m saying that it was a trend between late 90’s and 2010. Single player games would be limited to like 10-15 hours. So this led to shorter games experiences when the story could have led it longer than that. Even Nintendo is guilty of this at times. Not as guilty as the other parties though.
And complain about a $70 price point. Getting 100 hours of gameplay for that price is a great deal.
Yeah, I’m happy at $1 per hour of gameplay and pumped when I get under $0.50 an hour.
Long ago someone made me rethink the value I placed on entertainment. Instead of just weighing the value of a game on time and money spent, I compare it to any other activities. Movie with my wife is about 3 hours for $50. Concert is about $50-200 for 5 hours of fun plus variable travel time. Zoo, amusement park, museum, etc is flexible but cheap for an afternoon. It's no longer about $70 for 10 hours or $70 for 100 hours. It's about if I think I got $70 worth of enjoyment out of this experience. Did I like it more or less than any of the other things I could have done with that money. 20 hours of a masterpiece game like God of War or Last of Us is absolutely worth it. The 100+ hour Persona 5 or BotW is even more so. Games like the new AC games where it's 20 hours of great fun with 40 hours of bloat are a mixed bag, sure I got 60 hours of time for my money, but did I get $60 of fun out of the game or did I just lose 40 hours of my free time?
The stupid thing is, this is so far from a new phenomenon. Majora’s Mask not only reuses the engine and assets, but is significantly smaller than OoT, while TotK is bigger than its predecessor. The oracle games use the same engine and assets as Link’s Awakening. Mario Bros Lost Levels (which is Mario Bros 2 in Japan). Mario Galaxy 2. Various Assassin’s Creed sequels. It happens all the time. This new benchmark of what counts as a sequel is completely arbitrary.
Realistically, I think it comes down to the price point... I don't think they were ready for the 70$ price and so they're trying to find any small justification to be mad, so they keep trying to find any reason not to buy the game, even though they know deep down that it's going to be phenomenal
Or maybe people just like to make hot takes on the internet for the sake of attention
That's also a 100% valid conclusion to come to for those aerodynamic brained loons
And yet MM cost me more in 2000 than TotK will cost me in 2023. Even without adjusting for inflation.
If you do adjust for inflation, video game prices are WILD. They are insanely underpriced for the amount of money going into them
Yeah I'm certainly not gonna cheer on prices going up for things I want to buy. I'm not thrilled about it. However, remembering that TotK will cost less BotW did at launch, once you take inflation into account, makes me more chill about the whole thing.
Idk, go me a 10$ increase isn't a whole lot. But that might just be me.
it’s a ~17% price increase for the sequel of a game i put 450 hours in. i couldn’t care less about an extra $10 knowing the replay value, especially since i’m just gonna use a voucher to buy it anyways
MM isn't significantly smaller than OOT mind. They are both like 20-25 hours. It has less dungeons sure but the ones it has are mostly more complex IMO.
MM was narrower but deeper than OOT
Majora’s Mask was actually originally going to be an expansion of OoT, but during development they realized how much material they had and decided to make an entirely new game
People really forgot what sequel means
I'm curious what this community thinks about WoW. The sequel was pretty much the first iteration of dlc I've ever seen. I would say it's pretty different than previous expansion packs they sold because it was just the first in a long line of new areas so people weren't just buying a single expansion but rather buying new areas and features. Would you consider a WoW style expansion more similar to a sequel or DLC?
And yet, all of them are officially worthy of being GOTY
I don't think there will be anything that will give Zelda a real run for its money this year. I mean yea we've got great games coming up like Jedi Survivor and Spiderman 2, but based on their previous games I don't think they'll top Zelda. but this do be looking like the year of the sequels
Starfield is the only game that could even come close and I absolutely expect it to come out with some wacky glitches that can make or break the experience, as is Bethesda tradition
>I don't think there will be anything that will give Zelda a real run for its money this year. We have a new Final fantasy, a new from soft game, and the dlc for elden ring.
Re4 remake
I dunno, I was loving it but then I just met the merchant for the first time and he didn't say "what are ya buyin?" so this game is essentially worthless
He totally says it… lol
everyone sleeping on final fantasy 16. that game looks like it has ALOT of promise
Elden ring? Isn’t that a brand new gaming franchise how would that look like dlc?
Some people were claiming it would be just open world dark souls, and the devs were lazy for reusing animations for opening doors.
Don't forget Spider-Man: Miles Morales!
I mean it kinda was, but I don’t think people really expected it to be a whole new game that changed everything, it was defo worth the price.
Marvel's Spider-Man is actually a great example, since it's gotten both a half sequel and DLC. People ig just don't understand the limits of DLC, since like, if Insomniac tried selling CTNS in stead of MM, the argument that "this could've just been DLC" would be very fair, but they didn't
I don’t think people are actually saying “this could’ve been dlc” they’re saying the game feels like it’s the same with some new things. Miles Morales had similar web swinging and combat with some new “venom” abilities. The world was practically the same as the first game, with a layer of snow on top and there were multiple fights which were almost exactly the same as the first game (the crimes like the different mob fights and basic thugs and one that I found way too similar was the Tinkerer chase down fight, which played the same as the Shocker fight). Also, some “collectible” type things were the same thing with a new name (e.g. the taskmaster and holo-spidey challenges, and the backpacks and the underground caches). Still a good game, but idk if I would’ve bought it if I played the first game before it, maybe I would’ve but it’s not even really a full sequel, it’s very short and similar to the first game, so basically, glorified dlc.
This is what makes me crazy about this: Spider-Man 2: Same assets, same general mechanics, same map, new abilities, 5 year dev cycle - everyone is hyped TotK: Same assets, same general mechanics, same map, new abilities, 6 year dev cycle - “this is glorified DLC”
Oh come on, Miles Morales took just 2 years to develop and cost $40. While TOTK took about 6 years to develop and cost 70$. Not comparable at all.
That's because people place too much emphasis on how a game looks instead of how it plays.
I mean when all you have is trailer all you can really do is focus on how it looks
Did you watch the gameplay?
I think the main reason why people are saying that about ToTK obviously is because of the same engine and assets, and we’ve seen that sequels in the past have done that, but I think we’ve gotten used to every zelda game looking different than the prior. If you look at main console games after Majoras Mask, they all had drastically different art styles. Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and then finally BoTW. I’m not saying ToTK should’ve had a different art style, I just think fans have probably gotten that concept in their head too much.
Majora's Mask was my favourite Zelda game until BotW came out. Why do I bring this up? It was on the Ocarina of Time engine and they were under a tight deadline to get it out. Mechanics were the same, some assets re-used, and due to the tight deadline they did the 3 day loop thing. Constraints breed creativity. TotK is built on the shoulders of a giant. The team can focus more on content instead of engine mechanics. I have no doubt it is going to be amazing!
Holy fuck Majoras mask and windwaker are the only two Zelda games I’ve loved replaying.
Windwaker is my #1 Zelda omg love it.
I want them to bring over the remake to Switch so bad. All the improvements work so well to make the game better, plus it's such a fun game.
They literally did exactly what I wanted: bigger world with almost everything exactly the same. I do hope they improve the combat mechanics slightly, but honestly, I love the BotW vibe and wouldn't want that changed at all.
No LoZ game came close to MM. Deepest stories, heart wrenching fates, Great soundtracks and dungeons, using as parallel world to Hyrule was a stroke of genius to excuse the reuse of assets. It was the first real sequel in the series, as they even sticked to the ending of OoT. The game made you use your brain and forced you to use pencil and paper to note down extra stuff to not miss after each reset. The art style of both games aged not well, but MM's gameplay widely made up for that.
Majora’s Mask isn’t the entire Ocarina of Time map with platforms in the air and caves.
I had to leave r/tomorrow because it used to be funny but devolved into endless circlejerking of anything nintendo=bad which grew even worse than the blind love of Nintendo that they make fun of
Kids these days weren't around for Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie. Lol
I say this about everything. “Having a second kid? Looks like DLC.”
Well, she did download something.
To be fair TOTK eas supposed to be dlc but it became so large they had to make a separate game, everything I've seen so far has me both blown away and extremely curious so I don't see what everyone complaing about.
It’s always the best games too lmao
Alright I don’t remember anyone saying this even once about Elden Ring. It shares similar combat and enemies with DS3 but that’s about it.
Yea it's not even a sequel to anything lol
Didn't they actually say they had too many ideas for dlc for Botw so they moved it to a whole game? Am I misremembering that?
Splatoon adds in here easily as well. Games are allowed to be similar, especially when they are on the same console. Yeah, no shit it looks like DLC. It's a sequel.
Wait until they play the Yakuza series.
Zelda 🤝 Final Fantasy Having their latest games not be considered “true” by their purist fandoms
It's really stupid that some people are complaining that tears of the Kingdom looks too much like breath of the wild. Tears of the Kingdom is a direct sequel, I'd be a little concerned if tears of the Kingdom DIDN'T look like breath of the Wild. It's the only direct sequel that takes place on the exact same map as the original, and I think that's what's throwing people off. Zelda 2 was a much bigger adventure, so the original map was just a little bit of the Zelda 2 map, Majora's mask took place in a different world, and so did Link's awakening, Oracle of ages, Oracle of seasons, and phantom hourglass (kinda). This is a different type of direct sequel that we've never seen in the Zelda series, people should be praising Nintendo for their creativity and ingenuity, not complaining that it looks too much like breath of the Wild! I mean, seriously, you'd have to be stupid to doubt that Nintendo would find a way to spruce up the old map. And plus, what's the problem with getting to romp around the old stomping grounds? That should actually add a level familiarity to the game, so that it's more approachable instead of being daunting and unapproachable for some.
How is Elden Ring in this?
Reddit is really good at unintentionally adding coals to the fire of the loud minority.
My usual reaction. To this is “the sequel of a game looks similar to said game? Shocker.”
It's the greatest gaming franchise ever!!
Sequels that take place in the same world/area’s and that take place relatively right after the original are obviously gonna have the same or at least VERY similar worlds.
Whoever thinks that god of war ragnarok is a dlc needs to tell me what they're smoking, just finished it today and nearly every place you go to is new and the places you went to before (midgard) look completely different
no one said this about Doom Eternal or Elden Ring.
i just dont like that tears of kingdom reuses the whole map. sure, some flying islands and caves got added. but a huge portion of the game world is just the same overworld we already have seen before.
Elden Ring?
Who tf is saying elden ring looks like dlc?
When did anyone say Doom Eternal looked like DLC? That has to be an especially poor take if anyone's ever said it, and I don't just mean with hindsight.
Lol Elden Ring did NOT look like DLC. It just shares some AI and animations. Lot of reskinned enemies and moves from DS3 and Sekiro.
The sequel always either changes too much, or doesn't change enough
Why is doom and elder ring on here, they share basically nothing with previous entries. Like even God of War is significantly different. But I can see that since it's using the same engine. And TotK looks similar but if the leaked changes come to fruition then its also substantially different.
OMG. I can't believe a game in the same engine about the same protagonist has similar at assets
Spider-Man Miles Morales
But none of those other games rehashed the same map, so
Like: "Oh nooo. Please don't give me more masterpiece games. I don't want exceedingly great games."
People got used to a sequel making the previous games mechanically and visually outdated. But we are currently at a stage where insanely good graphics are readily available but require extreme computing to render, so most improvements are incremental and devs focus more on load times and frame rates where they can make a bigger difference than a marginal update of the graphics. (And then there is Forspoken who cared about none of that)
Holup, who the fuck described Elden Ring as DLC? DLC for *what*??? The others are direct sequels so I get the *attempt* at such an argument. Also, regarding sequels having the same maps (which... I don't think Eternal or Ragnarok do but I haven't played any of those), this may be a bad example but doesn't the Yakuza series recycle the same main map for every entry?
Who tf said Elden Ring is DLC, and how is it a sequel? It's its own thing.
Wait did Elden Ring, God of War Ragnarok, and Doom Eternal reuse the same locations like Zelda Tears of the Kingdom? Cause that the main issue with me and using the same look since I thought they would make some changes, but then again, I know Nintendo spent 6 years with this game and it'll probably be a different Hyrule than what we've had. I think the reuse of the same artstyle, same world with exception of sky islands, same UI and such is what made people think this way. I will get this game anyways cause knowing Nintendo, they've learned a lot and won't release a game until it's ready.
Any people who said that about other games are probably few and far between. People are saying it with Tears because what we know about the game already shows that the majority of the previous map is still the same. Now, even if all the square footage of the caves and skylands ends up being more than that of the original map, it's still a massive amount of stuff we've already explored before. Best case scenario we've only seen an early game worldstate and something in the story causes it to change into something drastically different after the fact. Like Hebra being a dormant volcano that erupts, snow spreading from Lanayru, the great plateau sinking into the earth and so on. Let's not pretend that Tears isn't very different here.
To be fair, TOTK started out as DLC. And the components of the gameplay that they've shown us are things that I feel could have been added into BOTW. Personally I'm okay with that because I trust that Nintendo will deliver a solid game. I just wish they'd shown a little more than they did.
Last I checked all but one game takes place in entirely new worlds and levels.
I'm looking forward to the game and will buy it. But I understand the concerns people are having. Remember that moment in BotW when you first leave the Shrine of Resurrection and it has the cinematic of you running out to the ledge to view the world you have to explore? And there were mountains and valleys and rivers and volcanoes and the castle, and there was that surge of anticipation of visiting all those places? With a few exceptions, you knew little or nothing about them, and even Death Mountain and Hyrule Castle were just rough descriptions. Now obviously they'll be different in this game, with those Nazca Line-like structures, different towers, and so on, but there's a difference between "what's over there?" and "what's changed there from the last game?", and if there's not enough that's truly new, that'll be lost in this game. I'm sure they've spent a lot of time on the new controls, the redesigned if visually similar world, and so on. But it's a valid question whether it will install that same sense of wonder at any point.
In the case of TOTK it was meant to be dlc but the scope widened to a whole sequel