Support NeoGAF

[IllegalLemon]

Both are great iterations of their predecessors. But if you asked me which I would pick, I'd say... Neither.

ToTK's floating islands, were a cool and playful concept for at least until the first hour of exploration, then, they become repetitive and look like an afterthought that's there as a distraction. Same goes for The Abyss(the game's subterranean world). It's cool and a bit horror inspired with pitch black darkness, but once you get the hang of it, it's basically more of something along the lines of a massive distraction, that's there for grinding for good gear and weapons. The UltraHand is the most interesting addition in the game. All that takes is a lot of creativity and you'll be able to make some insanely cool stuff to aid in navigation, traversal & crafting some really cool gadgets and synthesizing new, custom weapons.

Ragnarok's addition of new weapons and a second playable character makes for one interesting combat system and the potential for tailoring Kratos' build to your style makes for some really interesting character builds with different armour combinations. The story is where Ragnarok shines the most(it's really, really good) and so is the larger realm areas, which make each realm unique.

Both are great iterations of their predecessors, but they give a vibe of déjà vu in many areas. Neither is a particularly noteworthy improvement over its prequel. That doesn't take away from how great both are to play though and don't let that stop you from buying either of them. Both deserve a playthrough.

 

[Shut0wen]

Both game literally feel like there predecessors but id say totk did more since it has the best physics in any game since half life 2

 

[Shut0wen]

I mean zelda doesn't even trust your combat skills in general since you can pause and heal from a menu instead of having real time healing like most games with action, nintendo think that you are not smart enough to know when you have a window to heal so they cut that part entirely, am i doing it right?


Atreus telling you that you are on fire doesn't make the fight 0,1% easier compared to pausing and healing from a menu so i'm not sure what you point was.


Like i'm enjoying tokt way more tham botw and it could even steal a goty if starfield, spidey 2 and ff16 are not up the par, but let's not act like tokt does everything better than ragnarock just because of the honeymoon period...

I dont think you know what your talking about, the main reason you cant heal in real time is because theres literally no button unused

 

[TommyCronin6969]

Well Ragnarok is probably the worst sequel ever made to a reboot so Zelda all day.

 

[sainraja]

You can enjoy them both.

 

[GymWolf]

I dont think you know what your talking about, the main reason you cant heal in real time is because theres literally no button unused

They have 3 buttons combinations even for normal stuff, they could have made yet another one for healing , that's a silly ass excuse.

Their ui is already considered a bit cumbersome even by people who like the game, another combo of buttons would change absolutely nothing and it would add another whole layer to combat because you can't be as risk free as you are now where you can literally heal a second before getting hit or when you are on harmles knocked down in the ground.

Also, and i can't streas this enough, many other devs have their hands full with the limited buttons in a controller between attacks, skills, etc and they still manage to find a button for heal, it's not my fault if nintendo is incapable of doing that, or having a fucking dedicated roll\dodge button outside of lock on to avoid incoming danger.

If they where so starved for free buttons maybe you can tell me why they still use that shitty ass lock on that keep the left trigger occupied all the time and it's even worse when you have to change target because half the time it chose at random instead of using the lock on that 99,99% of action game use (and for a reason) where you click once and change target with the stick.

I love how you call out me but not the guy who think that sony added the fire line to actually help the player and not just because they like overly talkative companions...gimme a fucking break.

 

[SeraphJan]

"I don't like GoWR's story, ToTK had better story because I told my own story through its freedom and environment". Well, I told my own story in Euro Truck Simulator 2 (A fantastic game by the way) through its realistic world building, ETS2 must had better story.

If you guys wanna compare two product that is Apple and Orange at least try to compare the full package. Personal preference aside, lets take every aspect into consideration, including narrative, dialogue, presentation, the use of camera, audiovisual language, character acting/performance.

Why? Because you are comparing a game that heavily focus and put a huge amount of work on these technique against a game that put almost the same amount of work into its physic and maps design, saying GoWR story sucks because you don't like it, is like saying ToTK's mechanic sucks because you don't like it. Normally there is nothing wrong with stating your personal preference, however that won't do a fair comparison to these two product wouldn't it?

Hey, its called video "game", only gameplay count, storytelling doesn't matter. Well, If the thread is about which product is more "gamey", that argument might be true, but is it though?

Believe or not, game design framework had evolved much more since its original form for example:

A key concept I think might benefit many people here is:

"Sliding Scale of Gameplay and Story Integration"

The spectrum is something like this
Gameplay and story segregation <--------------------------------------------> Gameplay and story integration

The more story element you implement in a game, the more restriction you will have with the mechanic
·Minecraft there is literally no story or lore, so you also had least amount of restriction. It leans to the far end of the left of the spectrum
·BotW you have very minor cutscenes, but it still had lore, its more restrictive than Minecraft, but the mechanic is much more free compare to other game because it had no storytelling element to restrict its mechanic. It leans towards left of spectrum
·RDR2 it focus on both storytelling and mechanic , the mechanic has to be the more restrictive because that restriction serves the purpose of storytelling. If you would implement BotW physic into RDR2, not only you completely breaks the realism the game was trying to present, you also break the story sequence. It leans towards middle of the spectrum
·The Last of Us it heavily focus on storytelling with reasonable stealth and shooter mechanic. It leans towards right of the spectrum
·Telltales Games storytelling is its only focus, its mechanic is more close to a DVD menu, any other mechanic will complete break its core aesthetic. It leans towards the far end of right of the spectrum

The physic in BotW is not hard to make, its just that it interfere with many game's design philosophy, its not a limitation but a choice. RDR2 will lose its core audience if it went with BotW mechanic design.

Game mechanic provides incentive to play, Story provides meaning to that play, both element had been a staple since the beginning of video game. Its just that through technology advancement, we are no longer restricted to the text based storytelling which was the early 80s, now we could provide cinema level of Visual and Audio language into games instead of just texted dialogue, its an advancement and its not going away anytime soon.

For people who doesn't understand why storytelling is important in video game and how its different than reading book or watching movie, here is a keyword for you to research "LUDO (Ludology-Dramatology-Ontology)"

We will get the most out of video game if we start to appreciate diversity of game design.

 

[Dr. Claus]

I was fine with it, at least it had an ending and felt like a full game, unlike gow.

Yea, GoW Ragnarok would have benefitted greatly from having two separate games. Would probably fix a lot of the rushed plotlines, poor writing, and odd pacing issues. THere wa szero reason for it to have been crammed into one game and only served to create a weaker product.

 

[Knightime_X]

I don't fall asleep playing totk, so totk it is!

 

[Boss Man]

Ragnarok was great, but I’m barely 1 hour into Tears of the Kingdom and it already completely blows it away as a sequel.

The only improvement I really remember in Ragnarok was having some variation in teammates. I almost forgot about playing as Loki.

Not to rag on it though. I almost skipped the game because it looked so iterative, but ended up with 100% completion and loving it.

 

[Kataploom]

Just played some more hours of TOTK, it's far from "iterative"... Even the "same map" I can't recognize where the hell am I most of the time unless I check the map and even then get like "What? is this really same map?"... They barely used grometry but even that is so much chaged, change graphics and you wouldn't have people knowing it derivates from BOTW at all

 

[MacReady13]

As much as I enjoyed playing GoW:R, to me it feels like a hollow experience. Story isn't all I PLAY games for! I feel like I'm playing a great game when I play Zelda. With GoW I feel like I'm being told a story. Again, I have consoles to PLAY GAMES 1st and foremost.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Companions telling me solution to every puzzle and even standing/looking in the direction of where I'm supposed to go completely ruined Ragnarok for me.

 

[GutsOfThor]

Ragnarok because Link is a little bitch.

 

[Pedro Motta]

I enjoyed them both, this thread is nonsense.

 

[Terenty]

I voted for Zelda simply because Sony first party output is the antithesis of what gaming is all about. Don't expect anything innovative or creative from them, they are dead set on production values at the expense of everything else. Their studios all seem to consist of failed movie directors trying to tell you mature(read cringy) stories while simultaniously treating you like complete morons.

Nintendo still tries to make games first and foremost, kudos to them

 

[93xfan]

A ridiculous comparison, but how did 104 people so far get it wrong?

 

[Drizzlehell]

The fact that this thread is still going makes me think that someone on the mod team actively hates me, lol.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Both are good, but man do I think Tears of the Kingdom is vastly superior, personally. I'm still playing it too, and I'm nowhere near the end. I beat Ragnarok rather quickly, and I thought it was fine but ended up enjoying 2018 a lot more in the long run. I've said it here many times so I don't mean to repeat myself, but to me the game just felt like it was more watching and listening than actual playing.

 

[EverydayBeast]

How in the hell do you compare them? I think this is so wrong for gaming, Nintendo has games so does Sony.

 

[Represent.]

As much as I enjoyed playing GoW:R, to me it feels like a hollow experience. Story isn't all I PLAY games for! I feel like I'm playing a great game when I play Zelda. With GoW I feel like I'm being told a story. Again, I have consoles to PLAY GAMES 1st and foremost.

Great stories enhance good gameplay. They make every single combat encounter feel more impactful and meaningful.

 

[MacReady13]

Great stories enhance good gameplay. They make every single combat encounter feel more impactful and meaningful.

Nope. Mario World is one of the greatest games of all time and the gameplay is on point. Story is shit yet it makes no difference to me. I don't play games to have an award winning story if the game plays like shit or the gameplay is boring! You can give me a winning story but if the gameplay consists of the same crap regurgitated ad nauseam then i'm not invested. Gameplay is king. I hold a controller to PLAY games, not watch films with gameplay segments.

 

[Represent.]

Nope. Mario World is one of the greatest games of all time and the gameplay is on point. Story is shit yet it makes no difference to me. I don't play games to have an award winning story if the game plays like shit or the gameplay is boring! You can give me a winning story but if the gameplay consists of the same crap regurgitated ad nauseam then i'm not invested. Gameplay is king. I hold a controller to PLAY games, not watch films with gameplay segments.

Im not arguing that gameplay isn't king. Im saying that a great story can and should enhance even the greatest gameplay, and make that gameplay feel even more impactful. I mean thats the entire point of a great story.

You build the game around gameplay. Thats your base. But then things like audio, graphics, art, and yes, story... All go into enhancing that gameplay.

K kutakuta12 laugh if you love this post. what a guy.
how bout you state/form an opinion, or can you not articulate your words?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I voted for Zelda simply because Sony first party output is the antithesis of what gaming is all about. Don't expect anything innovative or creative from them, they are dead set on production values at the expense of everything else. Their studios all seem to consist of failed movie directors trying to tell you mature(read cringy) stories while simultaniously treating you like complete morons.

Nintendo still tries to make games first and foremost, kudos to them

Zelda doesn’t excel at gameplay mechanics though, the combat and controls feel ancient.

They excel at level design and sheer amount of content but much of it is fetch quests or endless exploration with weak rewards for hours upon end

The vehicle stuff is innovative and sandboxy but I don’t really consider that gameplay.

 

[Boss Man]

Zelda doesn’t excel at gameplay mechanics though, the combat and controls feel ancient.

They excel at level design and sheer amount of content but much of it is fetch quests or endless exploration with weak rewards for hours upon end

The vehicle stuff is innovative and sandboxy but I don’t really consider that gameplay.

Well that’s interesting, how would you define gameplay?

 

[GigaBowser]

Zelda doesn’t excel at gameplay mechanics though, the combat and controls feel ancient.

They excel at level design and sheer amount of content but much of it is fetch quests or endless exploration with weak rewards for hours upon end

The vehicle stuff is innovative and sandboxy but I don’t really consider that gameplay.

Love Gow but alls it really has is combats and even that parts nots as good or deep as TOTK

Git Guuoood

 

[Handel]

Ragnarok became God of Handholding while TOTK fully built on the freedom of BOTW, will take TOTK any day.

 

[Woopah]

I just finished Ragnarok and I don't really understand the writing complaints. I really enjoyed the story!

 

[GigaBowser]

Random booooootyful moments like this happens like this in TOTK and they are nots scripted just different parts of the world come together at the exact rights moments to make the Mona Lisa

This is art my friends

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Neither

 

[Bond007]

Beat Ragnarok and LOVED it.
Working on Tears now.

To me Zelda is the better game. It's simply on another level of excellence.
Only thing holding it back is the console it lives on- and even then, i'm not sure how they pulled it off.

 

[AJUMP23]

They are different games, both are great. But I prefer Zelda more.

 

[SlimySnake]

Zelda doesn’t excel at gameplay mechanics though, the combat and controls feel ancient.

They excel at level design and sheer amount of content but much of it is fetch quests or endless exploration with weak rewards for hours upon end

The vehicle stuff is innovative and sandboxy but I don’t really consider that gameplay.

I think gameplay includes everything from traversal to combat, puzzles, setpieces, boss fights and level design. It's what you're doing 99% of the time when you are not watching cutscenes. GOW's gameplay includes literally hours of walking while talking segments. Hours. It includes hours of boring atreus combat. It includes hours of boating or sledding none of which is fun.

The game literally only shines during combat. The level design is mediocre at best. The setpieces practically non-existent, and everything has that been there done that feel to it. I liked the combat, and would rank it above Zelda obviously but combat essentially makes up half the game. And it feels iterative. Zelda feels new and fresh 100% of the time and this is coming from someone who fucking hates BOTW for being a boring, overrated trash.

What they have done with the ultrahand extends beyond just vehicle building. It changes the combat. It changes the level design. It changes boss fights, traversal, and offers an insane amount of freedom gow can only dream of. When I went into boss fights in BOTW, I was like ok i have a bow and arrow and a weapon and thats it. Here i have fuse abilities, ultra hand, rewind abilities... I even used the ascend ability in a stone boss fight last night. They have completely changed the gameplay.

GOW was my GOTY last year. I hold the crater level as peak level design in my book right next to some of the best zelda dungeons of the past, but Zelda feels like those Uncharted 1 to Uncharted 2 caliber sequels while GOW feels like a lazy ubisoft far cry 3 to far cry 4 sequel. not a bad game by any means, but iterative and uninspired as fuck.

 

[darrylgorn]

Monster hunter rise

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I think gameplay includes everything from traversal to combat, puzzles, setpieces, boss fights and level design. It's what you're doing 99% of the time when you are not watching cutscenes.

So, for Zelda, 90% of the time is watching a stamina meter and pressing up on the left stick or quickly mashing the A button to run through a bunch of small text windows for NPCs if we are being reductive

The ultra hand feature basically boils down to using the same basic vehicle types over and over again and sure, if you want to spend hours building some interesting creation you can. I don’t care to do that, at all. Just like I didn’t in dreams or LBP

I would have preferred they spent all that that insane dev time making legitimately large dungeons, character progression systems, wiped clean the durability system, and expanded the combat mechanics to match modern standards.