Which game is objectively better? Which game has more flaws?

Which game is objectively better? Which game has more flaws?

Other urls found in this thread:

newstatesman.com/culture/games/2017/10/ending-super-mario-odyssey-turned-me-feminist-meninist
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Which game is objectively better?
Mario
>Which game has more flaws?
Zelda

BotW is more ambitious and experimental in terms of how it revolutionized the series, Odyssey is mostly a gigantic expansion of Mario 64 so it had less chance of getting things wrong. I wonder which one will be GOTY at the Video Game Awards.

Zelda is better and more flawed.
Incredibly ambitious game and I applaud it for that.

Mario pissed me off with Crumbleden being just a boss, and Bowser Kingdom, Luncheon"s 2nd half and the Final level being linear as fuck.
Pokios are cool and the postgame is nice, but it just felt like halfway through the game they forgot they wanted to make sandbox levels instead of linear obstacle courses.
80% of Odyssey is perfect whereas Zelda never lost sight of its ambition.

I agree, I think both represent something different. BotW is a great game that represents huge potential for the future of the series after being in a slump for several years. Mario Odyssey represents years of refinement and is an excellent game as a result.

In that respect Odyssey is better. But both are great, and it's a good time to be a Nintendofag.

Botw innovates more and has more flaws and less polish as a result. Odyssey is a better whole product, but Botw will have more effects on the industry and likely be more memorable

I was consistently more engaged with Odyssey since most areas in the main game were contained, thought-out platforming and capture mechanics. About halfway through BotW the samey dungeons and shrines felt like a slog.

Zelda's better but also more flawed. Zelda was consistently impressive, Mario was consistently good.

Haven't played Mario but BoTW started out phenomenal and progressively got worse as its flaws became more apparent.

I just beat the game as soon as I felt like I'd done enough. Honestly most of the critcism towards Zelda didn't register with me. Replaying it now doing a 100% run on Master Mode and I'm still loving it. Only real problems in my mind are that you get too strong as a result of progression and that the ending's weak.

I think one big issue was that people thought the story was weak. When we got that one trailer people were hyped for extensive lore about the Shiekah's for example. And when we got the game, most of the story had already happened. Which made the story lose impact for many people.

Mario is a giant nostalgic love letter and combined with the pacing, feels weird and rushed. Zelda is just barren and "unfinished".

Botw was seriously the worst game I've ever played. Mario is way better.

They're both overrated.

Both

Compared to what? They are their own genres at this point.

Can the lack of story really be called a flaw, when they said from the beginning they weren't really going for story?

I'd say Mario because Mario made no sacrifices and only expanded upon what was presented in 64, Sunshine, and even what worked in Galaxy. Breath of the Wild may have revolutionized Zelda, but it definitely cut corners in some regards. Enemy variety wasn't very good, there weren't a whole lot of dungeons, the story was kind of light due to the open-worldness. When you get into the late-game, weapon degradation isn't exactly the best mechanic even though it's great in the beginning. Both are masterpieces though.

Sonic Forces is better than both.

Mario's ending is bound to piss some people off. Mario saves Princess Peach, but then she ditches him and steals his ship leaving him stranded.

newstatesman.com/culture/games/2017/10/ending-super-mario-odyssey-turned-me-feminist-meninist

So Mario is better because it took no risk?

Zelda is more ambitious but suffers in different ways for it. Mario is safer but basically perfects everything great about the 3D marios.

They're both phenomenal experiences, and both represent mastercraft in game design. But there are more holes in BotW than in Odyssey.

That being said I like BotW more and if they continue on the route they're on for the next Zelda it's very clear to see the obvious improvements to the game would make something that could arguably become the greatest single player game of all time.

Zelda has more stuff, so it's bound to have more flaws.

Zelda has more flaws because it tries new things
Odyssey is just Mario doing what he does best

That's not what happens.

Why would someone make that image when twitter polls are a thing that exists?

Then why is an official website posting an article saying it does? I know the article is satire, but it's still stating the ending as if it actually happens.

Mario is a tight refinement of everything before it and is a very solid game

Zelda is the change and evolution Zelda needed in a long time but has very bad flaws that make it a waste of time in retrospect.

It's not cause Mario didn't take risks, and taking risks doesn't equal a better game.
Mario had more polish and variety. BotW's big selling point was the enormous world reminiscent of classic Zelda, but other aspects fell due to that.

I just started BotW and it was really cool for a while, but it's already starting to grate on me now that it's becoming clear that the whole game so far is just crowds of enemies with a chest that appears for beating them and some sporadic micro-dungeons. Seems like most of the fun in the game just comes from coming up with creative ways to dispatch enemies.

Mario isn't left stranded, he jumps on the Odyssey and they go back to the Mushroom Kingdom. He's napping next to it in the castle's garden right after the credits.

So she only tried to ditch him but didn't succeed?

BOTW risked more and delivered a unique experience.
Mario is the "typical" Mario masterpiece like 64 and Galaxies. They had it easier

She gets upset that Mario and Bowser are coming on to her too strongly to marry her right after all the shit she went through, she storms off to the Odyssey to go home and launches it,
then she calms down, waves at Mario and he uses Bowser as a footstool to get on the ship (which is easy because low lunar gravity).
It's pretty clear if you watch the ending.

Mario is a celebration of the series and everything reflects that, from the music to the controls. It's rock solid and I feel is objectively better
BotW was the grand return to the original formula and was daring to do some crazy stuff. I applaud it for that but it definitely has more flaws. Doesn't mean it's a shit game of course, but I'd choose Odyssey over BotW easily.

>Which game is better?
Zelda.
>Which game has more flaws?
Also Zelda.

Odyssey is basically a perfect game for what it sets out to do, however it ultimately doesn't deliver the tight platforming challenge combined with the sandbox levels and freedom of movement until after you've beaten the game. The entire opening hour or two of the game is also a huge bowl of mediocrity in comparison to Zelda's stellar tutorial. Both of the game's are exploration based but Odyssey actually feels like Zelda if it was all about the Korok seeds half the time.

Zelda has barely any enemy variety, too many shrines that don't capitalize on what could have been interesting puzzles, and the only real reward for exploration is the act of exploring itself. But gosh darn it's the only open world game I've ever played with good level design to speak of and the only one where I actually enjoyed going around the world. I will literally never attempt to get all moons and coins in Odyssey again after my first play through, but I will absolutely revisit every shrine and get every memory in Breath of the Wild again, because exploring feels that good.