Personally there are a few games which left me very dissappointed, after hyping myself up for years in certain cases.
Divinity Original Sin: turns out I prefer more streamlined, less packed games (love Pillars of Eternity) and that coop play in a CRPG stresses me out.
Wasteland 2: I actually managed to finish this one but secretly I admit I was hoping for a better Fallout which I didn’t really get. New Vegas did the cowboy theme much better.
INSIDE: while the design was cool, it was just a ton of boring, easy puzzles in comparison to LIMBO, its predecessor.
I really wonder what it is about TotK that makes for such wildly different opinions. Everything about TotK was a vast improvement over BotW for me. Up to and especially including revisiting the same locations to see how they’ve changed and exploring all 3 levels of the map to their fullest extent. I stopped playing BotW the moment I beat it after ~90 hours of play time. But I’ve continued to return to TotK nearly 300 hours in now, after beating it in about the same 90 hours originally. It’s just endlessly interesting wandering and getting sidetracked and finding / figuring out side quests.
I have a couple friends who beat it for the sake of beating the next Zelda game but the majority of my small circle continues to play, some even putting off beating it just to explore more. It’s very interesting seeing such different approaches, hearing what people focused on and how they tackled the openness. I’m not sure I witnessed the same phenomenon with games like Skyrim. Something about this one feels different at least. Hard to describe.
I think what confuses me most is that the majority of posts knocking TotK say things like “it’s exactly the same as BotW” or say it’s using the “exact same map”.
Having poured over 100 hours into each I just don’t understand this take. It’s objectively untrue. Yes, the core topical map is largely the same, but the content of it is extremely different. Having put so much time into BotW I’ve been very surprised at how few things are the same and like you have enjoyed seeing what has changed and where.
And that is to say nothing of the sky or the depths. The sky is somewhat limited but has such a sense of verticality and focus on flight that BotW didn’t have. The depths are gargantuan and chock full of things to explore, including some fun ties to the upper world if you can find them.
I’ve also found the enemies to be more varied, and more difficult to defeat across the board. This has been a fun challenge for me as well.
So yeah. I don’t know. It’s just a much, much larger game. If people simply don’t like it, or played BotW too recently for the core mechanics to feel fresh, then I kinda get it. Similarly if you are more into discovering more and more map and don’t care what’s in the map, then I can see how it could be a bit boring also. And overall maybe the open world style just isn’t for you. Fair.
But I don’t understand the criticisms I see most often about limited new content vs BotW because that is just very untrue.
Personally, a lot of the “content” in totk feels like busywork for me. With botw I didn’t know that to expect so I was willing to explore. But now, I know there’s only so many things I can find - a shrine or a korok seed. Totk just adds more of those tiny rewards (like bubblefrogs) and it just doesn’t feel worth it. At best, you sometimes get an armor piece but I barely even used any of those. There was one interesting side quest I found on the great plateau and I kept wondering what I would find, and it was just a heart container.
If any of the exploration lead to something other than a marginal reward, I think I’d enjoy my time a lot more. Maybe it’s just because I played outer wilds between the games, and find story to be a much more interesting thing to find than an item.