• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Reviews The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom | Review Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
another one for your graphic

GameOver.gr (8/10, review in Greek):
A worthy The Legend of Zelda game, Tears of the Kingdom is an adventure that spans across time, good and evil and tells an exciting story of light and darkness, yet still manages to fall victim of mechanisms old and new that deprive it of the refreshing addition to the series its predecessor was. Despite this, it’s still a title that is here to stay.
Click to expand...
 
Mr_No_U said:
Glorious day because of the great reviews but also because of some reactions I've seen around the internet

99e9900ef1170ae90be2ac92b79a792b81b9ee96.png
Click to expand...
what are they mad about
 
thoughthaver said:
what are they mad about
Click to expand...
The usual bs, which is why I'm kinda reminded of BotW's review day in fact.

"Zelda always gets a free pass!"
"It can't score lower than 90 just because of the name" (nevermind the fact that there are Zelda games with under 90 metascores)
"People are blinded by the hype machine/marketing" (this one I thought was funny considering all those claims that the marketing for it was subpar)
"Nintendo cheque"

etc.
 
People don’t realize their comments don’t make quite as much sense. Yes, the Zelda name is a big deal, but why is that?

Zelda has VERY HIGH standards. We all expect greatness from every single title. Because of that it’s graded with a more critical eye, since your expectations for this series is higher. It’s the same for 3D Mario. We expect excellence and that’s what we’re looking for.
 
I’ve been reading and watching the reviews. I’m honestly a little nervous about playing this game. I know it’s a big undertaking. I hope to have it completed by the time Pikmin 4 launches. 🤞🏾🤞🏾🤞🏾
 
0
HyahHaHa said:
The first thing I'm going to do after beating TOTK is start another playthrough of BOTW and TOTK back to back so I can make it one epic adventure with a time lapse.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that TOTK will be quite a "busy and intricate game", which means that the freedom of BOTW may still have an appeal.

I don't feel it'll be like GTA 3 > Vice City > San Andreas, where the leaps between games really made the older ones feel redundant.
 
I expected a 95 so I’m super happy to see it debut at a 97 (and drop to a 96, still fantastic score). I don’t get too attached to review scores with a lot of games I like not reviewing all that well, but I’m glad to see it reviewing exceptionally well. I’m going to a 11:00 pm launch at GameStop tonight, can’t wait for that.

Also avoid YouTube for spoilers, a friend of my one got the final boss spoiled in a thumbnail.
 
Dragoncaine said:
Interesting! What do you mean by "5 games away?"
Click to expand...
see the list here
www.metacritic.com

Best Video Games of All Time

See how well critics are rating the Best Video Games of All Time
www.metacritic.com www.metacritic.com

the averages the games now has is probably something like (made up number by me) 96.82, something like that, but metacritic only shows the first two numbers. but when listing the games by metascore it's based on the exact average the games have. so while a 96.82 and 96.10 both are listed as 96, it'd be harder for a low review to drop the game's score to 95 when it's a high 96.
 
.
balgajo said:
How many times a day does open critic updates? It is stuck with 62 reviews for a long time. At least for me.
Click to expand...

I’m wondering if there’s some sort of edge caching that’s preventing some users from seeing updates.

I was seeing 60 something reviews when others were talking about 75+ reviews and the 6/10 dropping. Only after I woke up (an hour ago) did I see updated numbers.
 
karmitt said:
.


I’m wondering if there’s some sort of edge caching that’s preventing some users from seeing updates.

I was seeing 60 something reviews when others were talking about 75+ reviews and the 6/10 dropping. Only after I woke up (an hour ago) did I see updated numbers.
Click to expand...
At first I thought it could be cookies issues, it was not. Then I thought it could be routing and reverse proxy issues, switched to work vpn(live in south america company vpn from US) and still see the same 62.
 
balgajo said:
At first I thought it could be cookies issues, it was not. Then I thought it could be routing and reverse proxy issues, switched to work vpn(live in south america company vpn from US) and still see the same 62.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I also see 62 reviews on OpenCritic.
 
karmitt said:
.


I’m wondering if there’s some sort of edge caching that’s preventing some users from seeing updates.

I was seeing 60 something reviews when others were talking about 75+ reviews and the 6/10 dropping. Only after I woke up (an hour ago) did I see updated numbers.
Click to expand...
I think the 75+ was MC, not OC
 
ProteusRidley said:
I mean it most likey will render botw obsolete. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a greatest of all time when it released, or even for people after totk released. That's not how it works. If a game succeeds at changing the way things work games, is enjoyable and loved, how does that not make it a GOAT? Was OOT never a GOAT? How about mario 64? You know Odyssey is considered by a huge variety of people to be the GOAT, but it's really just a sequel to Sunshine and 64, so that means those two were never Greatest of all times.

Do you see how that argument makes no sense?
Click to expand...
OOT and Mario 64 were never considered to be obsolete by their sequels. Even a game like TP which attempted to be a “bigger and better OOT” lost a lot of subtleties in the process. It says a lot about their quality in terms of game design when you basically have to compare them to future games in the same series if you wanna argue about them not being the best. OOT can still be favorably compared to BOTW in many ways. While MM came out, it did improve upon OOT in many aspects. OOT was still goated for not only providing the foundation, but also standing out from its successor (basically OOT is the Hero’s Journey, epic quest, more well rounded, MM has a different focus). If it only needed an interative sequel for BOTW to be rendered obsolete in every way except literal 2017 nostalgia and the in-game abilities that you have, it just means that it isn’t as robust in terms of design compared to other goated games. Why go back to BOTW if its sequel has a bigger world, more options, more involved villain, better level design. That honestly just shows how far following open world tropes gets you, again you simply never had this concern at all for other big single player Nintendo games

Jersh said:
This seems to be the crux of your argument, but you're framing it as objective truth when it's just... not. I thought BotW was paced marvelously. I never got tired of Shrines.

Mind you, that doesn't make it false; it's just not objective. Pacing is inherently very subjective. There isn't a fundamental flaw with open world design, you have a personal one. And that's fine.

FWIW, TotK seems to have more and larger segments of designed, linear scenarios, which I'm very excited for.



To be pedantic in way that everyone hates: "all time" includes the future. If something is no longer the GOAT, then it never was.

Of course, the logical end point of that is to never call something the GOAT, because you can't be sure. Which is why I don't. But I get that people don't mean it that literally, so I don't get hung up on it in normal discourse.

Except for the occasional exercise in pedantry like this
Click to expand...
Design is general is subjective, this doesn’t mean that you can disregard someone else’s argument simply because “it’s not objective, it’s a matter of opinion”. It was pretty bad when that other user got dogpiled for pointing out how pausing to heal was a design issue. Sure you could say that it wasn’t one for you because the game was difficult enough in your opinion, but you still had all kinds of fallacies to make it sound like it wasn’t a big deal at all when it’s a legit design issue. Subjective just means that it’s about human perception, that’s why it never made sense to use the term on the Internet when arguing about stuff like videogames and movies. We’re all human anyway, what’s the point about pointing out what’s objective or not, there’s nothing to discuss there

I know I sound serious and everything, I know a lot of people were fine with how the game turned out but I’m talking about the bigger picture here. Here’s another perspective on why I think the current state of open worlds is a problem and why my opinion doesn’t really conflict with people that love BOTW over other games or whatnot, this really has nothing to do with my point. So let’s look at Mario 64 right, it was a revelation not only for 3D games in general but also in the way that even though it wasn’t a totally open game, it wasn’t a level select screen anymore. Therefore, the way players engaged with the game was totally different from past Marios, in a way it was one of the first games that ignited this itch for exploration and freedom in games. OOT obviously needs no introduction, it basically did everything right in the first try. Good level design, verticality, action button, z-targeting, interactivity with the world, you name it. Both left a mark on the imaginations of many, both have influenced many games.

Now I haven’t played every single 3D open-ish game out there that came out since then so I can’t elaborate about all of them. A lot of them are in totally different genres compared to Zelda. There is one case of another action-adventure series though that perfectly illustrates my problem with open world in terms of game design. Let’s look at Assassin’s Creed. Remember when it was announced, it was made by the Prince of Persia team, it was supposed to be a PoP spinoff. PoP was a linear but great action/platformer/adventure. AC looked cool on paper, but in terms of gameplay it simply lacked any of the game design and player agency found in PoP. The platforming was now fully automated and reducted to the press of a button. Even the “tombs” and gameplay improvements in 2 didn’t do enough to mitigate this. The action was worse overall as well. The series evolved into this mismash of AAA design trends, not only disregarding its PoP roots but also the whole thing about trying to be an assassin. Now this is a very obvious textbook example of how AAA open worlds can go wrong, but the more telling part is how it end up having absolutely none of the qualities that its spiritual predecessor had. It still sold though, why is that, why is this a design issue, why can AAA open worlds keep getting away with it. Because they take level design for granted, they think videogames are in a constant evolution and past games are just old games. Their structure are always this kind of dopamine drip feed, you get points to upgrade your stats, you just keep chasing the small increment. It’s way harder to make a good game than to make a mildly addictive game, but these are still good enough to keep selling and have decent review scores. However, in the grand scheme of things, they are teases, people buy them in the hope that they deliver the next Mario 64 moment but it never really happens.

Thankfully Zelda is far from having these types of flaws, but the point still stands due to it basically adapting to the formula rather than making an entirely different kind of non-linear structure. It’s funny how the common answer to the problem of repetition in the game, as shown in that other reply to your post, is that “if Shrines bore you just stop doing them”. If that’s not a design and pacing issue I dunno what it is, that’s the whole problem, that’s saying that the game is more fun if you don’t fully engage with every crafted challenge the game has to offer, it should be the opposite. Call TP formulaic all you want but at least that game never overstayed its welcome or had diminishing returns. You had a final dungeon that included every item in the game, you had a boss battle, that’s it. Meanwhile, BOTW is just boring once you do every truly unique part of the game, aka the main story and a few select exceptions like Eventide Island.

If TOTK still has the exact same flaws regardless of its improvements, this clearly means the foundation is the problem. Again, this goes beyond people’s individual tastes in games, I just think open world as a structure holds back the entire industry and prevents a true Mario 64 moment of redefining freedom in games, because the foundation just isn’t good when the gameplay loop is basically these repetitive small increments of content. How many of these single player open world games simply crashed and burned, too many. I just want series to bring non-linearity in their own ways rather settling on giving their take on AAA trends
 
Really did not expect it to review this well - was more on the 94-ish train. Can't wait to play it.
 
Dark Cloud said:
People don’t realize their comments don’t make quite as much sense. Yes, the Zelda name is a big deal, but why is that?

Zelda has VERY HIGH standards. We all expect greatness from every single title. Because of that it’s graded with a more critical eye, since your expectations for this series is higher. It’s the same for 3D Mario. We expect excellence and that’s what we’re looking for.
Click to expand...
It’s almost like a company that’s been making critically acclaimed games for over 40 years, whose entire business is based on making good games, whose most prominent studio filled with generations of some of the company’s best talent, painstakingly hired from some of the most talented people in the industry and elsewhere in the company, with recent experience of creating one of the best reviewed games of all time in one of the most beloved series of all time, given a huge budget, six years of time and a limitless amount of feedback might, and I mean MIGHT, be able to put out a somewhat decent game.
 
Yoshifan31 said:
OOT and Mario 64 were never considered to be obsolete by their sequels. Even a game like TP which attempted to be a “bigger and better OOT” lost a lot of subtleties in the process. It says a lot about their quality in terms of game design when you basically have to compare them to future games in the same series if you wanna argue about them not being the best. OOT can still be favorably compared to BOTW in many ways. While MM came out, it did improve upon OOT in many aspects. OOT was still goated for not only providing the foundation, but also standing out from its successor (basically OOT is the Hero’s Journey, epic quest, more well rounded, MM has a different focus). If it only needed an interative sequel for BOTW to be rendered obsolete in every way except literal 2017 nostalgia and the in-game abilities that you have, it just means that it isn’t as robust in terms of design compared to other goated games. Why go back to BOTW if its sequel has a bigger world, more options, more involved villain, better level design. That honestly just shows how far following open world tropes gets you, again you simply never had this concern at all for other big single player Nintendo games


Design is general is subjective, this doesn’t mean that you can disregard someone else’s argument simply because “it’s not objective, it’s a matter of opinion”. It was pretty bad when that other user got dogpiled for pointing out how pausing to heal was a design issue. Sure you could say that it wasn’t one for you because the game was difficult enough in your opinion, but you still had all kinds of fallacies to make it sound like it wasn’t a big deal at all when it’s a legit design issue. Subjective just means that it’s about human perception, that’s why it never made sense to use the term on the Internet when arguing about stuff like videogames and movies. We’re all human anyway, what’s the point about pointing out what’s objective or not, there’s nothing to discuss there

I know I sound serious and everything, I know a lot of people were fine with how the game turned out but I’m talking about the bigger picture here. Here’s another perspective on why I think the current state of open worlds is a problem and why my opinion doesn’t really conflict with people that love BOTW over other games or whatnot, this really has nothing to do with my point. So let’s look at Mario 64 right, it was a revelation not only for 3D games in general but also in the way that even though it wasn’t a totally open game, it wasn’t a level select screen anymore. Therefore, the way players engaged with the game was totally different from past Marios, in a way it was one of the first games that ignited this itch for exploration and freedom in games. OOT obviously needs no introduction, it basically did everything right in the first try. Good level design, verticality, action button, z-targeting, interactivity with the world, you name it. Both left a mark on the imaginations of many, both have influenced many games.

Now I haven’t played every single 3D open-ish game out there that came out since then so I can’t elaborate about all of them. A lot of them are in totally different genres compared to Zelda. There is one case of another action-adventure series though that perfectly illustrates my problem with open world in terms of game design. Let’s look at Assassin’s Creed. Remember when it was announced, it was made by the Prince of Persia team, it was supposed to be a PoP spinoff. PoP was a linear but great action/platformer/adventure. AC looked cool on paper, but in terms of gameplay it simply lacked any of the game design and player agency found in PoP. The platforming was now fully automated and reducted to the press of a button. Even the “tombs” and gameplay improvements in 2 didn’t do enough to mitigate this. The action was worse overall as well. The series evolved into this mismash of AAA design trends, not only disregarding its PoP roots but also the whole thing about trying to be an assassin. Now this is a very obvious textbook example of how AAA open worlds can go wrong, but the more telling part is how it end up having absolutely none of the qualities that its spiritual predecessor had. It still sold though, why is that, why is this a design issue, why can AAA open worlds keep getting away with it. Because they take level design for granted, they think videogames are in a constant evolution and past games are just old games. Their structure are always this kind of dopamine drip feed, you get points to upgrade your stats, you just keep chasing the small increment. It’s way harder to make a good game than to make a mildly addictive game, but these are still good enough to keep selling and have decent review scores. However, in the grand scheme of things, they are teases, people buy them in the hope that they deliver the next Mario 64 moment but it never really happens.

Thankfully Zelda is far from having these types of flaws, but the point still stands due to it basically adapting to the formula rather than making an entirely different kind of non-linear structure. It’s funny how the common answer to the problem of repetition in the game, as shown in that other reply to your post, is that “if Shrines bore you just stop doing them”. If that’s not a design and pacing issue I dunno what it is, that’s the whole problem, that’s saying that the game is more fun if you don’t fully engage with every crafted challenge the game has to offer, it should be the opposite. Call TP formulaic all you want but at least that game never overstayed its welcome or had diminishing returns. You had a final dungeon that included every item in the game, you had a boss battle, that’s it. Meanwhile, BOTW is just boring once you do every truly unique part of the game, aka the main story and a few select exceptions like Eventide Island.

If TOTK still has the exact same flaws regardless of its improvements, this clearly means the foundation is the problem. Again, this goes beyond people’s individual tastes in games, I just think open world as a structure holds back the entire industry and prevents a true Mario 64 moment of redefining freedom in games, because the foundation just isn’t good when the gameplay loop is basically these repetitive small increments of content. How many of these single player open world games simply crashed and burned, too many. I just want series to bring non-linearity in their own ways rather settling on giving their take on AAA trends
Click to expand...
It’s crazy to me that the same people who criticized SS repetition didn’t have this feeling intensified 10x with BOTW. I mean, I agree with SS repetition but BOTW was the worst offender among Zelda games in this sense. After 20 shrines I was like: Are they really forcing me to do this to improve my health and stamina? Please bring silent realm and imprisoned back again, I swear I never complained about them Nintendo.

I really hope they addressed this with Totk but I am not optimistic after what I read.
 
regarding opencritic having less reviews, it's up to the sites to add their reviews. opencritic does not collect the reviews on their own. there's a lot of publications that don't add their reviews to open, and there's some who only are on there and not on meta.
 
Having consumed a good number of reviews, I'm left thinking more about what this game isn't than what it is.

I understand what it is, and know that it will keep me busy for months to come. Where the main Zelda team goes next, I have no idea... I just hope they are given and take all the time they need, they've given us plenty to work with.

But, what it isn't... and what they specifically chose not to focus on... I wonder what other Zelda titles we'll get in the wait. Link's Awakening and Age of Calamity both complimented botw beautifully (wrt linearity / puzzles, expanding the universe of botw). SS HD too was a purposeful decision in the lead up to this title. I wonder what Aounuma has cooking with regards to the series as a whole.
 
totofogo said:
Having consumed a good number of reviews, I'm left thinking more about what this game isn't than what it is.

I understand what it is, and know that it will keep me busy for months to come. Where the main Zelda team goes next, I have no idea... I just hope they are given and take all the time they need, they've given us plenty to work with.

But, what it isn't... and what they specifically chose not to focus on... I wonder what other Zelda titles we'll get in the wait. Link's Awakening and Age of Calamity both complimented botw beautifully (wrt linearity / puzzles, expanding the universe of botw). SS HD too was a purposeful decision in the lead up to this title. I wonder what Aounuma has cooking with regards to the series as a whole.
Click to expand...
1) The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom - Second Quest (DLC with playable Zelda, spring 2024)
2) New '2D'/portable Zelda

Let's gooo
 
Yoshifan31 said:
It’s funny how the common answer to the problem of repetition in the game, as shown in that other reply to your post, is that “if Shrines bore you just stop doing them”. If that’s not a design and pacing issue I dunno what it is, that’s the whole problem, that’s saying that the game is more fun if you don’t fully engage with every crafted challenge the game has to offer, it should be the opposite.
Click to expand...
I partially agree with you; I think botw is too eager to reward the player with korok seeds and shrines, to the point that it cheapens the evocativeness of its world. that being said, the option to just stop doing them is both intentional and an improvement over previous zelda titles, where the tedious shit is non-negotiable. botw resists completionist attitudes; that's why the reward for finding all of the korok seeds is a literal piece of shit
Yoshifan31 said:
Again, this goes beyond people’s individual tastes in games, I just think open world as a structure holds back the entire industry and prevents a true Mario 64 moment of redefining freedom in games, because the foundation just isn’t good when the gameplay loop is basically these repetitive small increments of content
Click to expand...
despite the thousands of words you've used to argue this, it does not seem to go 'beyond people's individual tastes in games', because your argument boils down to 'it's not good because I didn't connect with it'. I respect botw not being for you, but reducing the experience to 'repetitive small increments of content' is (literally) missing the forest for the trees in a game that shines because of its dedication to mindful play and the gamification of discovery
 
balgajo said:
It’s crazy to me that the same people who criticized SS repetition didn’t have this feeling intensified 10x with BOTW. I mean, I agree with SS repetition but BOTW was the worst offender among Zelda games in this sense. After 20 shrines I was like: Are they really forcing me to do this to improve my health and stamina? Please bring silent realm and imprisoned back again, I swear I never complained about them Nintendo.

I really hope they addressed this with Totk but I am not optimistic after what I read.
Click to expand...
Opinions are opinions and everything but I don't think I've ever seen a gaming opinion I disagree with more. The gameplay variety in the shrines and the very nature that they're completely optional makes them pretty much polar opposites to the repetitious nature of the Imprisoned and the Silent Realm.

The exception being the 20 test of strength shrines of course.
 
The Silent Realms are a really good example of content reuse that wouldn't work as well if you weren't familiar with the areas they're set in beforehand. Also the only fun stealth sections in a series with a long long history of terrible and pointless stealth sections. They don't deserve to be singled out in a game that has pointless crap like Scrapper or the Skyview Temple revisit. Should've probably been side quests though.
SlumWolf said:
I partially agree with you; I think botw is too eager to reward the player with korok seeds and shrines, to the point that it cheapens the evocativeness of its world. that being said, the option to just stop doing them is both intentional and an improvement over previous zelda titles, where the tedious shit is non-negotiable. botw resists completionist attitudes; that's why the reward for finding all of the korok seeds is a literal piece of shit
Click to expand...
The strangest thing about this is that they did it with Zelda, a series that was from the beginning fundamentally about collecting things to progress. Same deal with Odyssey. The studied ambivalence--sometimes crossing into hostility--to collecting things is so weird in games that, at the end of the day... still run on collecting things.
 
Man, can you imagine if TotK hadn’t gotten delayed out of last year? That GotY battle between it and Elden Ring would have been a bloodbath.
 
YoboD said:
Man, can you imagine if TotK hadn’t gotten delayed out of last year? That GotY battle between it and Elden Ring would have been a bloodbath.
Click to expand...
I am really glad for that though. Elden Ring could be one of the best games of the decade, and TotK seems to be in that way too.

Both games really deserved their time in the sun, and I am really glad for it. Zelda and Souls fan are better together than apart, and it's really awesome seeing the Fandom intersect without that competition.
 
Skittzo said:
Opinions are opinions and everything but I don't think I've ever seen a gaming opinion I disagree with more. The gameplay variety in the shrines and the very nature that they're completely optional makes them pretty much polar opposites to the repetitious nature of the Imprisoned and the Silent Realm.

The exception being the 20 test of strength shrines of course.
Click to expand...
They are "optional" if you're wiling to pay the price of not having health and stamina. So for most people they end up being obligatory.
It's the type of puzzle that doesn't work for me. They feel really disconnected from the game as if the game told me: ok, you entered a shrine, now grab your phone and play level 15 of connect the dots game and in the end I give you a orb (hyperbole warning, just the type of straightforward puzzle that doesn't give me satisfaction).
Of course solving them teaches the player how to handle some situations when they happen in the overworld. So they have their functionality. But after some of them I really felt burned out.

At least we had the shrines quests that were really great(kind of puzzle I really enjoy) and you receive the prize directly.

I will try to makes things more enjoyable with Totk. For example, discovering them but only entering when I feel that I'm in need of more hearts or stamina.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please familiarise yourself with our review thread guidelines before posting. Ignoring them may result in a threadban. You can find them here.
https://famiboards.com/threads/review-thread-conduct-policy.6015/

Any spoiler elements not covered in reviews is considered off limits for discussion.
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom