Ok hmmmm I’ve near heard that take before. My instinct is that Demon’s Souls and the like don’t own much to OoT, and owe a lot more to the various third-person combat games that already existed by 1998, like Tenchu, MGS and so on, and especially stuff that came a little later, but didn’t seem to me to be…

“Divisive? It sold nearly 30 million units, something like 15 million better than the next best selling Zelda.”

Buddy, I love you but that post you just is 100% stan-like.

Oh dear oh dear, here comes the backpedalling. You obviously didn’t mean that from what you said.

You asked the question. I guess you didn’t actually want an answer?

“OoT certainly felt like a sea change and the time.”

Indeed. It’s pretty bizarre - and we saw the same sort of grandiose claims over Ocarina of Time, which had equally limited influence. Almost every 3D Zelda game has had a weird subset of (largely American, for whatever reason) games journalists trying to hype it to heaven and back.

Yeah it’s notable that BotW does not yet seem to have been particularly influential, and I’m not sure it ever will be. Even the games people do cite as having been influenced by it tend to be fairly generic open-world games that don’t actually taken anything from BotW except being open-world and having a cutesy art…

Loads of people, including some critics, have either outright said that BotW established the genre, or strongly implied that it did and sought to dismiss or ignore previous examples. It’s a fairly shocking rewriting of gaming history.

No worries, I think Sea of Thieves is one of those games that doesn’t make the news much because its community is insular, so it’s hard to know much about it just by the usual process of sort of absorbing info (SWTOR, for example - it makes a ton of money, but most of us only know it from the first year or two, and it…

“Alarmist, hyperbolic? Maybe.”

It’s just not a meaningful difference and the fact that you’re so concerned about it indicates that, when it really comes to brass tacks, you just want to argue and snipe at people you say you agree with*, rather than wanting the actual issue addressed. It’s certainly true that every large studio has people remunerated…

It is. For example, David Zaslav's on-paper compensation is $250m - that's before stocks/shares and other more complex rewards come in. That's one individual and there are dozens in the same general pay bracket (mostly lower but still).

Sure re yet.

No, it isn’t.

Not being able to spend them immediately is utterly meaningless because at that level of on paper wealth you have effectively infinite ultra low interest or even zero interest credit.

David Zaslav has a salary of $250m - it’s unclear how large his other renumeration is - ie stocks/shares, but they’re typically larger than the salary by some margin, and would only need to be, what, 70% of the value again to be $430 million.

What, exactly, are you looking for, proof-wise? It seems like he was right to call you out re impossible to have an honest conversation because you haven't said and are insisting on being unrealistic.

“Star Wars, does not have that. Star Wars is a franchise with a much more narrow focus, with more concrete established settings, characters, esthetics, tone, and lore.”

Sometimes on the internet people get called out because they said something totally nuts, and then they try to shrug it off like they were just being sarcastic or exaggerating.