There is no part of Zelda that resembles complexity in any way. It can run on a potato because every system it has is multiple tiers below potato level.
It’s fine if you don’t like them, but calling the most popular and genre-defining open world games in recent memory bad on the very thing they are praised for is simply a bad faith argument.
Zelda BotW and TotK are the literal poster childs for ‘systemic games’.
They objectively do not have anything resembling complexity in any way. That is not a matter of taste. The math they do is simplistic because the hardware is not capable of running anything resembling a system with a hint of complexity.
Calling them complex is like calling 30 year old Madden as complex as modern Madden because the surface level is the same sport.
The actual 3D physics are a joke. They’re empty, simple sandboxes. Popularity isn’t complexity.
If you think there is no complex math behind your ability to freely build 3D machines with different propulsion methods, buoyancy, air resistance, light, particle emission and movable parts at any angle, then you know nothing about math in games.
That’s a great game, I agree! Anyway, the developers themselves thought it could run on a Wii U - there’s even an official trailer for it. While it was cancelled in the end, that happened to many other games too since the console itself was a monumental failure and the team had already much on their plate with every other port at the time being buggy as hell.
It’s fine if you don’t like them, but calling the most popular and genre-defining open world games in recent memory bad on the very thing they are praised for is simply a bad faith argument.
Zelda BotW and TotK are the literal poster childs for ‘systemic games’.
They objectively do not have anything resembling complexity in any way. That is not a matter of taste. The math they do is simplistic because the hardware is not capable of running anything resembling a system with a hint of complexity.
Calling them complex is like calling 30 year old Madden as complex as modern Madden because the surface level is the same sport.
The actual 3D physics are a joke. They’re empty, simple sandboxes. Popularity isn’t complexity.
If you think there is no complex math behind your ability to freely build 3D machines with different propulsion methods, buoyancy, air resistance, light, particle emission and movable parts at any angle, then you know nothing about math in games.
Like everything else, you can do it in terrible quality with trivial math, or you can do it for real with heavier math.
Nintendos version is two steps down from trivial.
Name a single game that does it better. If it’s both trivial and popular, there must be many examples!
Kerbal space program.
Except it’s actually good.
That’s a great game, I agree! Anyway, the developers themselves thought it could run on a Wii U - there’s even an official trailer for it. While it was cancelled in the end, that happened to many other games too since the console itself was a monumental failure and the team had already much on their plate with every other port at the time being buggy as hell.