Breath of the Wild: Your First Impressions

[Rangaman]

Actually those terms are one and the same. Sandbox and open world mean the same thing: an open-ended area in which the game takes place. You're confusing genres with game features.

Not true. "Sandbox" implies a more or less empty setting for you to fill in with content you create, that may or may not have a "right way" to play the game. Something like Minecraft, g-mod, or even The Sims would fall into this category.

"Open World", on the other hand, implies a setting that has been created for you to explore and discover at your own pace, while incorporating a "main quest" or something you're "supposed to be doing" that defines the setting, and may or may not allow user created content (mods). Elder Scrolls games, Red Dead, GTA, or Far Cry are good examples of this type of game.

The two involve vastly different gameplay styles, and bring very different concepts to mind when used to describe a game. Warcraft III, and Civilization V are both strategy games, but one is a RTS game, and the other is a TBS game. You wouldn't use the terms interchangeably because they refer to two completely different styles of play. Same thing applies here. Every "sandbox" game is technically "open world" by definition, but not every "open world" game is "sandbox".

Except those are genres. A sandbox is a feature, not a genre. Sandbox/Open World are completely interchangeable as terms, and it still pisses me off when people use them as genres.

What you are referring to are differences in gameplay and genre. Minecraft has more of an emphasis on building and creativity because it's a survival/toolbox game. GTA, meanwhile, is an action-adventure (due to its many styles of gameplay). The sandbox doesn't play into those mechanics, it's just a features developers decided to add.

 

[Drathnoxis]

You're confusing "sandbox" with open world. All of those games you listed are "open world" games. Sandbox games would be games like Minecraft, Arma, Garry's Mod, etc.

Actually those terms are one and the same. Sandbox and open world mean the same thing: an open-ended area in which the game takes place. You're confusing genres with game features.

Not true. "Sandbox" implies a more or less empty setting for you to fill in with content you create, that may or may not have a "right way" to play the game. Something like Minecraft, g-mod, or even The Sims would fall into this category.

"Open World", on the other hand, implies a setting that has been created for you to explore and discover at your own pace, while incorporating a "main quest" or something you're "supposed to be doing" that defines the setting, and may or may not allow user created content (mods). Elder Scrolls games, Red Dead, GTA, or Far Cry are good examples of this type of game.

The two involve vastly different gameplay styles, and bring very different concepts to mind when used to describe a game. Warcraft III, and Civilization V are both strategy games, but one is a RTS game, and the other is a TBS game. You wouldn't use the terms interchangeably because they refer to two completely different styles of play. Same thing applies here. Every "sandbox" game is technically "open world" by definition, but not every "open world" game is "sandbox".

It doesn't matter if you can back it up with logic, the terms are what they are. Sandbox has been used to describe openworld games for decades, back to GTA, and that isn't going to change so easily. It's like arguing that inflammable should mean incapable of being set fire to, like indestructible. You'd be right, but that doesn't change what the word actually means.

 

[deadish]

Also that frame rate sometimes... Yeesh. Some motion blur might've alleviated it, but right now whenever it pops up it's one big eyesore.

You kidding? They can't even afford anti-aliasing.

Is there seriously still no anti-aliasing? Skyward Sword was hideous for the jaggies and they didn't fix that?

There does not seem to be any anisotropic filtering either.

Take a look for yourself:

 

[Drathnoxis]

It doesn't matter if you can back it up with logic, the terms are what they are. Sandbox has been used to describe openworld games for decades, back to GTA, and that isn't going to change so easily. It's like arguing that inflammable should mean incapable of being set fire to, like indestructible. You'd be right, but that doesn't change what the word actually means.

Then by your own logic, you're the one using the term incorrectly and changing what the word actually means, not me. People said the world was flat for a long time, but that doesn't excuse people like those knuckle-dragging NBA players who insist on saying it still is flat now that we know for a fact it isn't. You can use language properly, or you can choose to massacre it, but don't act like you're justified in doing so, and like people who bother to use the appropriate terms for things are the assholes. It embarrasses both of us.

I never changed anything it's just how languages work.

Sandbox
...

adjective
3.
Digital Technology. noting or relating to a genre of video game with a nonlinear structure that allows players to roam freely.

If that isn't the very definition of "Open World" I don't know what is.


Certain things just stick, for whatever reason, and when you have millions of people that understand words a certain way it would take a massive institutionalized effort to change them. If you go and try to change the meanings to what you think they should be you're the one who is going to be misunderstood, and you are going to have to explain yourself to every single person you talk to. There are a thousand things about the English language that are stupid and don't make sense and you, as an individual, have as much chance of changing them as you do this.

You can't compare languages to empirical fact either, there isn't anything like "absolutely correct" when it comes to them. There's a reason semantic arguments are widely regarded as pointless, because it's pretty much impossible to prove things either way and it doesn't matter if you do because people are just going to keep on using the words as they use them anyway.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Sandbox
...

adjective
3.
Digital Technology. noting or relating to a genre of video game with a nonlinear structure that allows players to roam freely.

If that isn't the very definition of "Open World" I don't know what is.

Oh hey, you got a definition from dictionary.com? Those guys sure play a ton of video games over there, if anybody's gonna understand the correct usage of the term it's gonna be them! Boy, you sure showed ME up. Give me a break...

I don't know why I'm even going to bother explaining this again since you're going to make excuses about why circles are squares but since you happened to catch me in a charitable mood, we'll do this one more time. Try to read slowly this time, and ask an adult for help if you need somebody to help you sound it out. Ready?

"Sandbox" implies a more or less empty setting for you to fill in with content you create, that may or may not have a "right way" to play the game. Something like Minecraft, g-mod, or even The Sims would fall into this category.

"Open World", on the other hand, implies a setting that has been created for you to explore and discover at your own pace, while incorporating a "main quest" or something you're "supposed to be doing" that defines the setting, and may or may not allow user created content (mods). Elder Scrolls games, Red Dead, GTA, or Far Cry are good examples of this type of game.

The two involve vastly different gameplay styles, and bring very different concepts to mind when used to describe a game. Warcraft III, and Civilization V are both strategy games, but one is a RTS game, and the other is a TBS game. You wouldn't use the terms interchangeably because they refer to two completely different styles of play. Same thing applies here. Every "sandbox" game is technically "open world" by definition, but not every "open world" game is "sandbox".

Just because every square is a rectangle, does not make every rectangle a square. Same concept applies here. Now that you're educated, you can start using the terms correctly, or choose to remain deliberately ignorant; but don't act like I'm the one who's incorrect if you do.

Too bad for you language is majority rule. The sooner you accept that the easier time you will have. I'm not even saying whether or not your reasoning is correct, just that you don't set the definitions, the collective does.

There does not seem to be any anisotropic filtering either.

Take a look for yourself:

Actually, that doesn't look that bad. A bit worse in portable mode but NOTHING like Skyward Sword.

 

[MeatMachine]

Pretty good overall but I hate the run/jump button placement. There's the option to change run and jump from b and x to x and b but I want run on A with jump on b. I hate run and jump not being beside each other.

I absolutely hate this too, but so far, I've found no situation where sprint-jumping made any difference.

Would you recommend this to someone whose basically sick of sandbox games?

I realized the formula was no longer working for me when Skyrim came out. I later confirmed that feeling with the release of Dragon Age: Inquisition.

I've come to learn that The Witcher 3 is probably the sandbox pinnacle in the industry right now but my computer can't run that game so I never gave it a chance.

So with that background in mind....

Do you think Zelda would be my thing? Does it truly stand out among the sandbox greats to deliver something that would appeal to people who are bored of non-focused, non-narrative driven games?

I would argue (in my 8 hours of the Wii U version) that what separates Breath of the Wild from most other open-world RPGs is that the main story REMAINS your primary interest and focus, and that sidequests and exploration are not so prominent that they make you forget that you are trying to save the world.

Breath of the Wild takes most of its inspiration from the very first Legend of Zelda game, in so much that about 80% of the world can be traversed from the outset (after you leave the initial tutorial area, the Great Plateau), but that you will get punished brutally by powerful enemies. Loot and difficulty are not linear and do not scale with the player, but the main quest (which is actually enjoyable) takes no grinding to complete. Exploration, sidequests, and optional shrines are largely treasure hunts for good items or permanent player buffs, but are not forced upon you - which makes them feel more rewarding.

It's a good balance, in my opinion.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I am going to have to disagree with you on the weaponbreaking thing. I actually like it, things break, pick up a new one!

Unless that 'new one' is the gazillionth Boko Shield. Kind of takes the new-ness out of it. Especially when you finally have some decent equipment, it suddenly breaks and you have to resort to trash again. Looks like a hassle, and going by my experiences with Far Cry 2 that'd get me annoyed real fast. There should be some kind of repair possibility in hubs or something, so you can at least salvage your good shit after a long romp in the wilderness.

Disclaimer: I've only been watching BotW through a streamer.

It's another childish Nintendo game

Childish huh? Say, Mr. Macho Man, have you met our resident Manly Gamer(tm) B-Cell? You guys should be friends.

 

[Silvanus]

"There are more idiots in this world than intelligent people, so dumb yourself down to the masses, and let the stupid people make all the decisions". Now THERE'S a compelling argument if I've ever heard one! Do you even listen to yourself talk?

Language, unlike truth, genuinely does depend on common usage, which is what (primarily) defines it. Oddly enough, using the term "sandbox" or "open-world" has absolutely no implications for the intelligence of the user, so we can handily dismiss that complaint; nobody is becoming stupider for choosing one or the other.

Sounds like a democrat voter's mentality to me...

Ahh, we all wanted political slurs in our video game chat. How refreshing! People might have started enjoying talking about their hobbies, otherwise.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I'm liking it a lot so far. Not sure exactly how long I've played for. I'm slowly making my way towards Kakariko Village while getting distracted by shiny things along the way. I like the little goblin camps scattered around. It's always satisfying sneaking up then throwing a bomb into their midst. The shrines are cool. I've only done three so far (not including the first four on the plateau). Haven't seen any real dungeons yet. Came across one of the guardians and got insta-killed. Experienced my first bloodmoon which was pretty cool. Being able to climb everywhere and glide safely down from high areas is great.

Frame drops haven't been too bad so far (playing on the Wii U) but I've heard in villages it can get pretty unpleasant.

Pretty good overall but I hate the run/jump button placement. There's the option to change run and jump from b and x to x and b but I want run on A with jump on b. I hate run and jump not being beside each other.

I'm not a fan of that either. It is worth noting (if you haven't worked it out already) that you don't have to hold the sprint button to do a running jump. If you tap sprint then press jump in quick succession it works.

I've noticed that as well, it's really just a minor annoyance. It's also something I've actively avoided doing due to the stamina cost(while jumping doesn't cost stamina, if you run jump the jump itself does cost stamina then). The act of a running jump to glider really limits your flight time.

 

[PureChaos]

Been playing for about 4 hours and really enjoying it. Just entered the 4th shrine so can't wait to see what comes next

 

[Guffe]

I am going to have to disagree with you on the weaponbreaking thing. I actually like it, things break, pick up a new one!

Unless that 'new one' is the gazillionth Boko Shield. Kind of takes the new-ness out of it. Especially when you finally have some decent equipment, it suddenly breaks and you have to resort to trash again. Looks like a hassle, and going by my experiences with Far Cry 2 that'd get me annoyed real fast. There should be some kind of repair possibility in hubs or something, so you can at least salvage your good shit after a long romp in the wilderness.

I just think it brings another tactical aspect to the whole thing.
Like I have been able to get 2 more weapon slots, so I usually try to carry 2 soldiers broadswrords which are fairly strong but not too rare. Then 1 spearlike weapon and 1 twohandedthing, I have 1 torch and 1 woodaxe, and then 2 rare wands which I have found but neer used... I should try at least one of them out (fire and lightning elemental). Then i also have the 20attack power sword form the first shrine where I had to fight a miniboss, so I am saving that one.
But yeah, I can see this feature getting on peoples nerves, I like it so far.

 

[CritialGaming]

I'm working on a full impressions post in the next day or two. But I'll go over a couple things right here.

1. The world is beautiful however it feels a little spread thin to me. Things to pick up, monsters to fight, all feel so spread out that the size of the map feels excessive for the sake of it.

2. Additionally the overall activities are really limited here. The basics of the adventure revolve around hunting shrines until you feel ready to go fight Ganon. With little real diversion outside of enemy camps and tower climbing to mix things up.

3. Combat is clunky. With no lock on function and a rather slow rotating camera, I count tell you how many times I've died because I lost track of an enemy speeding past me on a horse or picking me off from a tower while I beat his friends into dust.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Clocked about 10-15 into it so far (self employment rocks.) REALLY enjoying it so far. The open world is fantastic and there's very little "fat" on it. Every piece of the world feels deliberately designed and it really is a cut above a lot of open world games in quality.

I have one MAJOR major problem with it and that's the weapon breaking thing. It's not so much that they break in general (although personally I don't like that in the first place) but there don't seem to be countermeasures to them breaking. I've been to 4 major towns and tons of little miscellaneous shop locations and so far I haven't found a single place that sells swords/shields/bows and there doesn't seem to be a way to forge them out of common materials.

This can be a huge problem because other than the crappy clubs and stuff that are designed to break almost immediately, most decent weapons are in treasure chests that never respawn so if you get a cool sword in a shrine or something, once it breaks you're never seeing it again. That bothers my OCD on its own, but it can lead to scenarios like one I found myself in earlier, where I spent some time screwing around in a single area to show some people the game, and in doing so destroyed all my "real" weapons and stripped the land of its resources. Links attack power also doesn't scale, so if you're in that situation fighting tougher enemies, the crap you pick up off the floor will break way before they die.

Even if the game does have countermeasures to this later, the fact that I'm this deep in and still feel like it's a problem means it's negatively effected enough of the game to influence the overall experience. It's not game ruining by any means and overall my impression of the game is still extremely positive, it just seems like a really big oversight.

 

[Dragonbums]

I've been enjoying it a lot so far. It really absorbed me into the game. As another user said the side quests aren't more Interesting than the main plot. However I love doing them because I want to squeeze as much out of the game as possible.

Also you die a lot. No cheese in it though. It's fair.

 

[Bobbety_F]

I haven't had that much time with it so far, but I'm loving what I've seen and played. If anyone's interested, here's my first hour or so in the game, condensed into a fun-sized five-minute bite

https://youtu.be/9AdUxXQsR2E

 

[Rangaman]

Except those are genres. A sandbox is a feature, not a genre. Sandbox/Open World are completely interchangeable as terms, and it still pisses me off when people use them as genres.

What you are referring to are differences in gameplay and genre. Minecraft has more of an emphasis on building and creativity because it's a survival/toolbox game. GTA, meanwhile, is an action-adventure (due to its many styles of gameplay). The sandbox doesn't play into those mechanics, it's just a features developers decided to add.

I know they're genres. Sandbox is a genre. I already explained why the two terms are in no way interchangeable, I'm not doing it again because you were too slow to catch it the first time. It still pisses me off when people who don't take the time to understand what they're trying to talk about start spouting off like they know something, then cop an attitude when they're obviously wrong.

Go ahead and rationalize it any way that helps you sleep at night. You're the one who's gonna look ignorant by improperly using terms you don't understand for the rest of your life, not me.

Except a sandbox is a feature, and anyone who actually studies this (or at least consults Dr Google) will tell you that.

I wasn't "too slow to catch it", you failed to understand my point: those two words, as terms, mean the exact same thing. It doesn't matter what preference people have. I've heard Minecraft being described as "a sandbox" more often than "an open world game". Doesn't mean it's not an open world game as well. "Preferred terminology" and "literal definition" are two very different things.

Quite frankly, you're the one being a dick here. So I wouldn't have a go at me for "having an attitude".