‘K

Yeah, there are parts of Zelda that are still in BotW, never argued against that. Just that many core aspects are missing.

Eating bugs doesn’t restock your ammo.

Good, good. This is such a unique game. My only worry is that players who didn’t plop money down aren’t going to spend the 5-10 hours it takes for the game to actually get rolling.

Sure, a Mature rating means 17+, which even means people born after FFX came out. But I’m not sure that I’d consider that a “young” audience.

I’m just going to ahead and delete this post. ;D

You did suggest that:

I don’t think citing some open world games you don’t like shows that you don’t like the concept of open worlds. If you had said “I don’t like the open-world aspects of BotW, but it’s fun regardless” you may have had a valid point. Instead you basically admitted you like BotW because of the open world.

Sure, sure, but where are these recognizable pieces of Zelda:

I don’t want to sound like I’m disregarding most of your post, but I think you admitting that you don’t like the older 2D Zeldas more-or-less confirms my argument. You liked BotW mainly because you don’t like the Zelda formula. And I think that dramatically changing a game is the worst thing a developer can do, as it…

I may be an outlier, but I didn’t really like Breath of the Wild. In my head, people only like BotW because people in general prefer open world games, and they disregarded how little like Zelda that game actually is.

Many people bounced off the original X-COM because of how clunky it was, but the newer XCOM fixed all that. Point being, it’s asinine to write off a system wholesale because of what it looked like 20 years ago.

Jeez, if only there was a way to bring back a great mechanic but make it more intuitive. Maybe call it mod... moderni... Wait, no, what am I thinking, that’s impossible!

Didn’t Yoshida say in an earlier interview that the game is action to attract a younger audience? Doesn’t the game being darker and more mature run counter to that argument?

That’s not what I meant. I meant that the feature, once added to a console, has no limit to the number of games that can be suspended indefinitely.

That’s not how programming works. Once you have the feature you can enable it for however many games you want. The limiter is hard drive space.

Sony had a Game Pass competitor before Game Pass even existed. Microsoft was simply bullishly aggressive in acquiring subscribers to that service. That kind of “sell at a loss until you’re the only game in town” tactic is a pretty common economy-of-scale idea in the west.

As advice goes, that’s pretty bad. Unlike Microsoft, games are a major money maker for Sony. Giving their games away for free to grow their subscription service would lose them a ton of money. Microsoft is only able to do it because their main divisions dwarf the Xbox division.

It isn’t clear, but sounds like developers have the option of getting a larger amount if they choose to go exclusive. If true, that sounds fairly standard.

Didn’t Marvel apparently approach Microsoft and they passed?