![]() Odyssey gives me the same vibe as the Galaxies, and I love it. But they didn't feel like they were from the same lineage as 64, Sunshine, and the Galaxies. Super Mario Odyssey - I don't think Super Mario 3D Land and World were bad games.The entire package is impeccably constructed and I can't think of a thing I'd change. It even made my top ten that year.Ĭuphead has potentially the strongest aesthetic of any game I've ever played, and it's also fun to play. Yoshi's Woolly World, for instance, had gameplay I thought was serviceable at best, but I loved the entire aesthetic of the game. Cuphead - A strong art direction can often make a game for me.But none of that length seemed like filler, so it's more an observation than complaint. If I were to complain about anything, it would be that the game is almost too long. I adore the game's art direction, and the minimal soundtrack sets the mood of the game spectacularly. Combat was much more satisfying than I expected, and after a few upgrades, movement became compelling as well. Hollow Knight - I was skeptical of a Metroid-ish game built mostly on melee combat, but Team Cherry put my fears soundly to sleep.It's a remarkable game, and whereas most years I sort of waffle about which game should be my number one, it wasn't even close this year. It's as though Nintendo heard the criticisms of the 3D Zelda games of late, and, despite the very high critical scores the games were receiving, they said "we need to do something radically different." And by god, they did something radically different that still feels like a Zelda game in a lot of ways. I'm not quite ready to say this game is making all other open world games feel silly by comparison, but when I was playing Horizon later in the year, I kept on wondering why they would do things in certain ways when Breath of the Wild had already done them in generally better ways. It's often the story or the combat or something like Shadow of Mordor's nemesis system.Īll of this is to say that Breath of the Wild falls squarely in the Bethesda bucket, but with gameplay refinements and polish that I would have scarcely thought possible in a game that's so open. ![]() And that's not to say the Ubisoft style is bad, because I have enjoyed many of them thoroughly, but I don't find their open worlds to be the draw of those games. It's the difference between saying "I should go over there and do that side quest" and "I have no idea what's over there." I've always found exploration in a Fallout game to be much more rewarding than exploration in an Assassin's Creed game, and I'm much more likely to sink obscene amounts of time into Fallout. The main difference in Bethesda-style games is they encourage you to go in random directions to see what's there. They give you extremely long lists of tasks to complete, and your map will eventually be what I refer to as "icon barf." When you're past the game's introduction, there isn't much to compel you to pick a random direction and go. I like to think Ubisoft-style games are open world mostly because it's the cool and impressive thing to do, but they don't necessarily take advantage of what you can do with an open world. I think of one as the Ubisoft bucket and one as the Bethesda bucket (some games are a healthy mix, such as Red Dead Redemption or The Witcher 3). The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - I generally put open world games into two buckets.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |