@Sentinel call me crazy but man…I actually think I have fonder memories of BotW than I do for Tears of the Kingdom. There was something about the scale of Breath of the Wild that was just better for me…idk. Going to sit on it and see how I feel but I actually found myself itching to replay BotW recently (not that I will lol).
Um, it's actually quite the opposite to me.
Sure, BotW left a larger impression on me, that's true but since I've played TotK, I cannot help but look at BotW as pure demo. I know this might sound stupid but whenever I replayed BotW again, I just feel like it's an unfinished version of TotK.
That's why I said in my previous post that TotK being too similar to BotW sure didn't do the previous game good at all. It's unfortunate.
Sure, BotW left a larger impression on me, that's true but since I've played TotK, I cannot help but look at BotW as pure demo. I know this might sound stupid but whenever I replayed BotW again, I just feel like it's an unfinished version of TotK.
That's why I said in my previous post that TotK being too similar to BotW sure didn't do the previous game good at all. It's unfortunate.
I think it’s that I felt more immersed in Breath of the Wild’s world. It felt very grounded and like I really had to explore the world. Tears of the Kingdom felt like I already knew the world and whenever I needed to go somewhere I just shot myself into the sky and flew there. Which wasn’t exactly fun, it just seemed faster.
Exploring the depths was great at first, boring 100 hours in.
Exploring the sky was great at first, and just fine 100 hours in.
Building Zonai devices was fun at first, time consuming and irrelevant 100 hours in.
I don’t want to sound like a BotW swallower all the sudden because my criticisms of that game still stand, but to me it felt like Breath of the Wild had better exploration than TotK which is the heart of Zelda.
TotK using the exact same base map template was really a shot in the foot. If the sky and depths were more memorable it would be more forgivable I guess.
Idk man, I just don’t know what it is but these new Zelda games just don’t have the hearts and souls of the old ones. I can’t explain it lol.
Exploring the depths was great at first, boring 100 hours in.
Exploring the sky was great at first, and just fine 100 hours in.
Building Zonai devices was fun at first, time consuming and irrelevant 100 hours in.
I don’t want to sound like a BotW swallower all the sudden because my criticisms of that game still stand, but to me it felt like Breath of the Wild had better exploration than TotK which is the heart of Zelda.
TotK using the exact same base map template was really a shot in the foot. If the sky and depths were more memorable it would be more forgivable I guess.
Idk man, I just don’t know what it is but these new Zelda games just don’t have the hearts and souls of the old ones. I can’t explain it lol.
Sorry guys, another wall-of-text but after the game awards, I think I still want to address some issues of TotK:
I think Ganondorf's influence throughout the story was really great and it showed how scheming and manipulative he is.
Remember how several NPCs saw that fake Zelda? This was Ganondorf all along.
There are plenty of main and side quests which highlight how Ganondorf keeps messing with you. To be honest, this Ganondorf was definitely the best version along with WW and OoT Ganondorf.
BUUUUUUT: At the end, even Ganondorf's characterization didn't rescue the poor and cheap story narrative which TotK took over BotW. I cannot believe they managed to redo the whole stupid memory storyline bullshit again. I thought it was no longer necessary. Yet there we are, witnessing memories from 10000 years ago. To make things worse, this game actually SPOILED me because I took one memory out of order. I saw HOW GANONDORF BECAME DEMON KING. I was literally boiling with anger lmao. Waiting 6 years for that game whilst avoiding spoiler, only for the game to spoil me that randomly on a crucial story event.
Well, enough of my rant: Actual time travel would be WAY BETTER because Link would follow the story events LIVE instead of seeing glimpses of Zelda's memories...
I think that's the main reason why Ganondorf isn't that convincing in this game for many people. Another reason is that Ganondorf arguably stays in the Gloom's Lair and does nothing else significant throughout the game. No forced storylines and events when Ganondorf's influence actually increases throughout the game and the player is actually forced to have an encounter with Ganondorf but is forced to retreat because he is simply too strong.
And no, that Hyrule Castle boss (and that fake Zelda) doesn't count because ultimately, all of that is irrelevant and skippable (HUGE ISSUE!) because you can directly go to the Gloom's Lair and fight Ganondorf instead.
Also, where is the point in making Ganondorf completely dehydrated if he can immediately hydrate himself any time? He had no struggle to gain his young body back. He just randomly gets it in that final battle. It really bothered me.
It would be way better if Ganondorf actively seeks to gain his young body back, ie. by targetting Link or the remaining tears.
Nintendo needs to stop making bullshit narratives of "Oh yOu cAN JusT DIreCTlY fIgHt THe FiNAl bOsS iNsTeaD!". It's shit and it makes linear storytelling nearly impossible. Even completely open world games like Skyrim, GTA, Witcher, Elden Ring and Co do not have this stupid narrative.
Yeah, I agree.
They should have completely focused on the sky islands. To make things even worse, they did an entire underground map which is basically Hyrule world map but reversed.
It would be way better if they just let the old Hyrule map be and actually do a completely new map - basically like that underground one - but this would be old Hyrule, 10000 years ago, with significant changes. Reversed map and other different things. This would basically be the next Dark World.
If they did it in that order, I think the storyline would be way more fluent and implemented properly into the game because Link would basically be forced to interact with the memory events. Would that not be better?
Heck, they could also limit exploration on present Hyrule world and make the sky islands more interesting. This can definitely be implemented story-wise - there was already lots of gloom on several Hyrule fields. Just coat that stuff onto several areas of the overworld and make these areas inhabitable. This would already be sufficient. Also, I was very disappointed when I learned they cut out LOTS of sky islands because "it filled the skies way too much" according to the devs. Hello? They used the sky islands as THE REASON for marketing. They always made sure to show as many shots of the sky islands as possible - only to learn that most of these sky islands were cut off. Again, my disappointment was immeasurable. Waiting 6 years only for this? I really expected better. They better not do this shit with the next Zelda game.
Honestly, I am glad TotK didn't become GOTY.
This game was sooo close to becoming another BotW DLC with the vast similarities and I think this should definitely be avoided at the next Zelda game. If this game became GOTY, this would just validate TotK's game design even more which is definitely the wrong direction of the Zelda series.
Furthermore, I don't get this: They changed the Zelda formular because it became too repetitive but where is the point of developing a new formular, only to make new repetitive games of the new formular? Why not combining those two formulars in the first place??? After all, they used the old formular for nearly 20 years. I just don't get it.
At the end, BotW was more successful in exploration because everything was new. TotK is just another A Link between Worlds but basically worse since it is a sequel to a 6 yo Zelda game. ALbW was intented to be a remake of a SNES title at the beginning but afterwards, they decided to make a new game. Keep this in mind, the game had a similar layout but it was STILL DIFFERENT. The same cannot be said to BotW and TotK.
I think Ganondorf's influence throughout the story was really great and it showed how scheming and manipulative he is.
Remember how several NPCs saw that fake Zelda? This was Ganondorf all along.
There are plenty of main and side quests which highlight how Ganondorf keeps messing with you. To be honest, this Ganondorf was definitely the best version along with WW and OoT Ganondorf.
BUUUUUUT: At the end, even Ganondorf's characterization didn't rescue the poor and cheap story narrative which TotK took over BotW. I cannot believe they managed to redo the whole stupid memory storyline bullshit again. I thought it was no longer necessary. Yet there we are, witnessing memories from 10000 years ago. To make things worse, this game actually SPOILED me because I took one memory out of order. I saw HOW GANONDORF BECAME DEMON KING. I was literally boiling with anger lmao. Waiting 6 years for that game whilst avoiding spoiler, only for the game to spoil me that randomly on a crucial story event.
Well, enough of my rant: Actual time travel would be WAY BETTER because Link would follow the story events LIVE instead of seeing glimpses of Zelda's memories...
I think that's the main reason why Ganondorf isn't that convincing in this game for many people. Another reason is that Ganondorf arguably stays in the Gloom's Lair and does nothing else significant throughout the game. No forced storylines and events when Ganondorf's influence actually increases throughout the game and the player is actually forced to have an encounter with Ganondorf but is forced to retreat because he is simply too strong.
And no, that Hyrule Castle boss (and that fake Zelda) doesn't count because ultimately, all of that is irrelevant and skippable (HUGE ISSUE!) because you can directly go to the Gloom's Lair and fight Ganondorf instead.
Also, where is the point in making Ganondorf completely dehydrated if he can immediately hydrate himself any time? He had no struggle to gain his young body back. He just randomly gets it in that final battle. It really bothered me.
It would be way better if Ganondorf actively seeks to gain his young body back, ie. by targetting Link or the remaining tears.
Nintendo needs to stop making bullshit narratives of "Oh yOu cAN JusT DIreCTlY fIgHt THe FiNAl bOsS iNsTeaD!". It's shit and it makes linear storytelling nearly impossible. Even completely open world games like Skyrim, GTA, Witcher, Elden Ring and Co do not have this stupid narrative.
Yeah, I agree.
They should have completely focused on the sky islands. To make things even worse, they did an entire underground map which is basically Hyrule world map but reversed.
It would be way better if they just let the old Hyrule map be and actually do a completely new map - basically like that underground one - but this would be old Hyrule, 10000 years ago, with significant changes. Reversed map and other different things. This would basically be the next Dark World.
If they did it in that order, I think the storyline would be way more fluent and implemented properly into the game because Link would basically be forced to interact with the memory events. Would that not be better?
Heck, they could also limit exploration on present Hyrule world and make the sky islands more interesting. This can definitely be implemented story-wise - there was already lots of gloom on several Hyrule fields. Just coat that stuff onto several areas of the overworld and make these areas inhabitable. This would already be sufficient. Also, I was very disappointed when I learned they cut out LOTS of sky islands because "it filled the skies way too much" according to the devs. Hello? They used the sky islands as THE REASON for marketing. They always made sure to show as many shots of the sky islands as possible - only to learn that most of these sky islands were cut off. Again, my disappointment was immeasurable. Waiting 6 years only for this? I really expected better. They better not do this shit with the next Zelda game.
Honestly, I am glad TotK didn't become GOTY.
This game was sooo close to becoming another BotW DLC with the vast similarities and I think this should definitely be avoided at the next Zelda game. If this game became GOTY, this would just validate TotK's game design even more which is definitely the wrong direction of the Zelda series.
Furthermore, I don't get this: They changed the Zelda formular because it became too repetitive but where is the point of developing a new formular, only to make new repetitive games of the new formular? Why not combining those two formulars in the first place??? After all, they used the old formular for nearly 20 years. I just don't get it.
At the end, BotW was more successful in exploration because everything was new. TotK is just another A Link between Worlds but basically worse since it is a sequel to a 6 yo Zelda game. ALbW was intented to be a remake of a SNES title at the beginning but afterwards, they decided to make a new game. Keep this in mind, the game had a similar layout but it was STILL DIFFERENT. The same cannot be said to BotW and TotK.
I love Zelda and Aonuma but I’m glad that they didn’t win in the GOTY category
The intention of Totk was wrong to begin with
"We had some left over ideas and wanted to use them."
Don’t get me wrong, Totk is a great game but Botw was the second coming of Oot:
a revolutionary master piece
Of course it has flaws but still
I hope they’ll hire more people and split the Zelda games into 3 genres: Open World, 3D and 2D
Or they mix Open World and traditional 3D Zelda games and go the middle way
a best of both worlds
The intention of Totk was wrong to begin with
"We had some left over ideas and wanted to use them."
Don’t get me wrong, Totk is a great game but Botw was the second coming of Oot:
a revolutionary master piece
Of course it has flaws but still
I hope they’ll hire more people and split the Zelda games into 3 genres: Open World, 3D and 2D
Or they mix Open World and traditional 3D Zelda games and go the middle way
a best of both worlds
Nope. They still plan to make "open air" Zelda games. The new one will simply not have any connections to BotW and TotK.
I think they'll keep on using the overworld like a sandbox but I hope they won't go overboard with it like TotK.
That was a lot of crafting and while it is very funny, it didn't really feel like Zelda at all. Rather it was like Minecraft or something like that, you know?
Or like Tobi D Dog said, a mix between new and old formular would be the best.
And please, NO. BREAKABLE. FRAGILE. WEAPONS. If they're breakable, at least give each weak weapon 500 durability (hit points) and make more special ones even unbreakable. I get that BotW/TotK needed the fragile breakable weapons since it was kind of survival gameplay where you always have to take weapons from enemies. That's why it was also crucial (plus I tested the unbreakable weapons mod in CEMU emulator and it really broke the weapon system in BotW) but since this Zelda won't be the same to BotW/TotK - I assume - maybe this wouldn't even be needed if you cannot take weapons from enemies.
Plus, blacksmiths are crucial. Nintendo knew the critics about the breakable weapons and they didn't really fix it at all - only made it more complicated with the extra weapon crafting. And there is still the issue that special weapons can still be destroyed like the Biggoron Sword. Why not make them disappear for 10 minutes like the Master Sword??
Anyway, we're getting a completely new Zelda game; most likely with a completely new game engine and game physics.
I think they'll keep on using the overworld like a sandbox but I hope they won't go overboard with it like TotK.
That was a lot of crafting and while it is very funny, it didn't really feel like Zelda at all. Rather it was like Minecraft or something like that, you know?
Or like Tobi D Dog said, a mix between new and old formular would be the best.
And please, NO. BREAKABLE. FRAGILE. WEAPONS. If they're breakable, at least give each weak weapon 500 durability (hit points) and make more special ones even unbreakable. I get that BotW/TotK needed the fragile breakable weapons since it was kind of survival gameplay where you always have to take weapons from enemies. That's why it was also crucial (plus I tested the unbreakable weapons mod in CEMU emulator and it really broke the weapon system in BotW) but since this Zelda won't be the same to BotW/TotK - I assume - maybe this wouldn't even be needed if you cannot take weapons from enemies.
Plus, blacksmiths are crucial. Nintendo knew the critics about the breakable weapons and they didn't really fix it at all - only made it more complicated with the extra weapon crafting. And there is still the issue that special weapons can still be destroyed like the Biggoron Sword. Why not make them disappear for 10 minutes like the Master Sword??
Anyway, we're getting a completely new Zelda game; most likely with a completely new game engine and game physics.
Curious as to how you guys feel about this topic:
I was in the camp that always said Nintendo’s desperate attempts to conjure up a Zelda timeline from thin air was bullshit. To me the Zelda games always seemed like mostly unrelated games connected by the IP and by the recurrence of certain characters every now and then, but it was just clear as day these games were never made to be related or part of the same universe.
Take Death Mountain for example. Death Mountain and the Gorons are presented so drastically differently every single game that it’s clear Nintendo never planned for the games to be connected. How would Death Mountain go from a small rocky city in OoT to a massive mountain network in BotW? It never made even an ounce of sense to me. How did the Deku disappear and the Koroks emerge? Why is every area so geographically different in between each game?
Nah, these were clearly meant to be independent games connected by the same series from the start. And that’s fine, Mario doesn’t need to have a damn timeline for his games to endure, and neither does Zelda imo.
So Nintendo really shot themselves in the foot when they tried to connect shit that was never supposed to be connected in the first place. So when I saw all these BotW lore theorists popping up, I knew these people were making mountains out of nothing. I hate to say I told you so, I want Zelda to have great lore but it was obvious that the Barbarian armor set wasn’t supposed to have some deep and complex history.
The Zelda team wanted an armor to boost attack power. So what comes to mind when you think “raging warrior”? Barbarians right? Boom, barbarian armor set and that’s it. There’s not some deep history behind this shit.
To be clear I would have a similar criticism of the From games if the From games didn’t go out of their way to connect their story elements and build an actual (mostly) coherent narrative around their gameplay elements. BotW doesn’t do that with any gameplay element at all because it’s not some well thought out narrative. They didn’t hire George RR Martin to write an entire history around BotW lol.
So Zelda fans trying to make a lot out of a lot of nothing asked for this imo. I’m not happy about it but it was always the obvious truth around the Zelda games. This shit wasn’t planned out, there was never meant to be a coherent timeline, there was never more to these games than the fact that they were just a bunch of amazing independent games combined by an IP for profit’s sake.
Anyway, rant over. What do you guys think?
I was in the camp that always said Nintendo’s desperate attempts to conjure up a Zelda timeline from thin air was bullshit. To me the Zelda games always seemed like mostly unrelated games connected by the IP and by the recurrence of certain characters every now and then, but it was just clear as day these games were never made to be related or part of the same universe.
Take Death Mountain for example. Death Mountain and the Gorons are presented so drastically differently every single game that it’s clear Nintendo never planned for the games to be connected. How would Death Mountain go from a small rocky city in OoT to a massive mountain network in BotW? It never made even an ounce of sense to me. How did the Deku disappear and the Koroks emerge? Why is every area so geographically different in between each game?
Nah, these were clearly meant to be independent games connected by the same series from the start. And that’s fine, Mario doesn’t need to have a damn timeline for his games to endure, and neither does Zelda imo.
So Nintendo really shot themselves in the foot when they tried to connect shit that was never supposed to be connected in the first place. So when I saw all these BotW lore theorists popping up, I knew these people were making mountains out of nothing. I hate to say I told you so, I want Zelda to have great lore but it was obvious that the Barbarian armor set wasn’t supposed to have some deep and complex history.
The Zelda team wanted an armor to boost attack power. So what comes to mind when you think “raging warrior”? Barbarians right? Boom, barbarian armor set and that’s it. There’s not some deep history behind this shit.
To be clear I would have a similar criticism of the From games if the From games didn’t go out of their way to connect their story elements and build an actual (mostly) coherent narrative around their gameplay elements. BotW doesn’t do that with any gameplay element at all because it’s not some well thought out narrative. They didn’t hire George RR Martin to write an entire history around BotW lol.
So Zelda fans trying to make a lot out of a lot of nothing asked for this imo. I’m not happy about it but it was always the obvious truth around the Zelda games. This shit wasn’t planned out, there was never meant to be a coherent timeline, there was never more to these games than the fact that they were just a bunch of amazing independent games combined by an IP for profit’s sake.
Anyway, rant over. What do you guys think?
And you already destroyed my hope of a classic Zelda or rather a real game from the Wii U Tech Demo.I played TotK for 1 day and then sold it.I rly hated it
On the switch 2 yes.Because the switch is turbo outdated
They should just say each Zelda game plays in a different Universe.All of this messed up timeline is ass
On the switch 2 yes.Because the switch is turbo outdated
They should just say each Zelda game plays in a different Universe.All of this messed up timeline is ass
You guys should read this
https://nintendoeverything.com/legend-of-zelda-eiji-aonuma-linear-traditional-games/
https://nintendoeverything.com/legend-of-zelda-eiji-aonuma-linear-traditional-games/
Yeah sorry but I call this BS.
It is not just about restrictions; with the current way how Zelda games are developed, you can hardly do a coherent storyline. There were 4 important side characters telling the same stuff, with the same scenes (ancestors fighting Ganondorf), this would have been avoided if the story had a more linear storyline. It's a fact. You can still make a vast explorable world with very few limitations whilst making a coherent story. Yeah sure, with a more coherent and linear story, it would also mean there's some more restrictions on the game but this is honestly better. The initial thought about open air Zelda games seemed good but we all saw the execution, me included.
120 repetitive shrines.
No coherent story.
Many less memorable areas in the story.
More unnecessary crafting.
There are good and bad parts about openworld games and BotW/TotK really stretched the bad ones to its near limit whilst improving on the good ones. Tbh, I'd rather have more restrictions but with a funny functional story instead of the new formular which feignings freedom because this freedom mainly touches the surface, not the issues which are brought by it.
I mean, it's perfectly good that you can explore the world in any way you like but it's just an excuse to not include proper storylines into the game. None of the other open world games like Elden Ring, Skyrim, Witcher or even GTA made you directly fight the final boss if you want.
So that's how the newer games will be?
Someone in the comments already mentioned it perfectly: Would we even like Midna as much if she appeared in BotW/TotK? Would she still get that kind of characterization which she got in TP? I don't think so.
And that's the issue about BotW/TotK storylines: They are not fluid and have no clear line. Everything just feels completely optional as if you're just doing some side quests. That shouldn't be the case with main quests. That's my take.
Plus, they talk about freedom vs restrictions but it is really that creative to make 120 (and in TotK, it's even 152 shrines - 32 more!) mostly repetitive mini dungeons like the shrines? The only different thing about them are puzzles but that's it.
At least dungeons had more individuality in TotK but they all still had the same objective about the 4 - 5 terminals. No keys, no locked doors, no secret paths, no mini boss, skippable puzzles (you can just glimb the walls in the Fire Temple for example). They talk about all that freedom stuff but freaking shrines have more restrictions (!) than the actual main dungeons. Is that really their intention?
If future Zelda games will have the same narrative, I'm thinking twice of buying those games... There's a lot of valid criticism and if they just toss all that aside because of "freedom", I doubt newer Zelda games will be that different to BotW/TotK and I wouldn't doubt they would ultimately "restrict" themselves way more by making absolutely limitless options in development.
I liked the creativity and mystery in older Zelda games. I liked all the dungeons, even the bad ones. I even liked the stories, the endless debates about the timeline. Now they just cut off everything interesting and unique about that and replaced it with new stuff, claiming "new and less restrictive stuff is better" and hoping the traditional Zelda fans will like it, hell naw.
Well, it's hardware-issues.
Just like how they actually tried to make Wind Waker similar to BotW - no joke - but the technical limitations didn't make it possible to go that far. They always wanted to build a very large world of pure adventure and exploration. Look up the earlier development of OoT - the map was 2x larger than it originally came out to be iirc.
But yeah, design-wise, Death Mountain always had different appearances but I guess, it's mainly an artistic choice because there wouldn't be any fun in climbing the same mountain in every Zelda game which looks visually the same. I mean, TotK already used the same map and look how many people were quickly bored because of exploring the same map.
I partially agree because Nintendo did intent to link some Zelda games with each other.
Some examples:
Ocarina of Time - Majora's Mask.
Wind Waker - Phantom Hourglass - Spirit Tracks
Twilight Princess.
And all games are somewhat connected to Ocarina of Time - WW, PH, ST, TP and MM.
Then there is AlttP which would put OoT as the prequel basically.
I wouldn't say that the official timeline makes sense - it really doesn't - but some Zelda games do have a clear timeline. Skyward Sword is basically the start of everything. But the Downfall timeline can easily be explained as parallel universes or some alternative reality in which Ganondorf won.
Yeah, the entire timeline is really messy but I can't say it wasn't funny to debate about that.
Then BotW came and just tossed the entire thing away with the explanation "Yeah, BotW is in all timelines."
To make things worse, TotK then completely ruined everything. Basically, Hyrule was long destroyed but then rebuilt by the Zonai. Then a new Ganondorf was born and the whole imprisonment war and 10000 years of Calamity began.
I guess they ultimately decided to abandon the timeline. No wonders, they also abandoned everything which made older Zelda games unique...
Someone asked the devs why all Sheikah devices, guardians and the Divine Beasts disappeared.
Their response: "Well, they magically disappeared and nobody knows why."
Also them: "We don't want to have limitations in newer Zelda games", yeah sure!
Just say you don't gaf about the story anymore...
It is not just about restrictions; with the current way how Zelda games are developed, you can hardly do a coherent storyline. There were 4 important side characters telling the same stuff, with the same scenes (ancestors fighting Ganondorf), this would have been avoided if the story had a more linear storyline. It's a fact. You can still make a vast explorable world with very few limitations whilst making a coherent story. Yeah sure, with a more coherent and linear story, it would also mean there's some more restrictions on the game but this is honestly better. The initial thought about open air Zelda games seemed good but we all saw the execution, me included.
120 repetitive shrines.
No coherent story.
Many less memorable areas in the story.
More unnecessary crafting.
There are good and bad parts about openworld games and BotW/TotK really stretched the bad ones to its near limit whilst improving on the good ones. Tbh, I'd rather have more restrictions but with a funny functional story instead of the new formular which feignings freedom because this freedom mainly touches the surface, not the issues which are brought by it.
I mean, it's perfectly good that you can explore the world in any way you like but it's just an excuse to not include proper storylines into the game. None of the other open world games like Elden Ring, Skyrim, Witcher or even GTA made you directly fight the final boss if you want.
So that's how the newer games will be?
Someone in the comments already mentioned it perfectly: Would we even like Midna as much if she appeared in BotW/TotK? Would she still get that kind of characterization which she got in TP? I don't think so.
And that's the issue about BotW/TotK storylines: They are not fluid and have no clear line. Everything just feels completely optional as if you're just doing some side quests. That shouldn't be the case with main quests. That's my take.
Plus, they talk about freedom vs restrictions but it is really that creative to make 120 (and in TotK, it's even 152 shrines - 32 more!) mostly repetitive mini dungeons like the shrines? The only different thing about them are puzzles but that's it.
At least dungeons had more individuality in TotK but they all still had the same objective about the 4 - 5 terminals. No keys, no locked doors, no secret paths, no mini boss, skippable puzzles (you can just glimb the walls in the Fire Temple for example). They talk about all that freedom stuff but freaking shrines have more restrictions (!) than the actual main dungeons. Is that really their intention?
If future Zelda games will have the same narrative, I'm thinking twice of buying those games... There's a lot of valid criticism and if they just toss all that aside because of "freedom", I doubt newer Zelda games will be that different to BotW/TotK and I wouldn't doubt they would ultimately "restrict" themselves way more by making absolutely limitless options in development.
I liked the creativity and mystery in older Zelda games. I liked all the dungeons, even the bad ones. I even liked the stories, the endless debates about the timeline. Now they just cut off everything interesting and unique about that and replaced it with new stuff, claiming "new and less restrictive stuff is better" and hoping the traditional Zelda fans will like it, hell naw.
Well, it's hardware-issues.
Just like how they actually tried to make Wind Waker similar to BotW - no joke - but the technical limitations didn't make it possible to go that far. They always wanted to build a very large world of pure adventure and exploration. Look up the earlier development of OoT - the map was 2x larger than it originally came out to be iirc.
But yeah, design-wise, Death Mountain always had different appearances but I guess, it's mainly an artistic choice because there wouldn't be any fun in climbing the same mountain in every Zelda game which looks visually the same. I mean, TotK already used the same map and look how many people were quickly bored because of exploring the same map.
I partially agree because Nintendo did intent to link some Zelda games with each other.
Some examples:
Ocarina of Time - Majora's Mask.
Wind Waker - Phantom Hourglass - Spirit Tracks
Twilight Princess.
And all games are somewhat connected to Ocarina of Time - WW, PH, ST, TP and MM.
Then there is AlttP which would put OoT as the prequel basically.
I wouldn't say that the official timeline makes sense - it really doesn't - but some Zelda games do have a clear timeline. Skyward Sword is basically the start of everything. But the Downfall timeline can easily be explained as parallel universes or some alternative reality in which Ganondorf won.
Yeah, the entire timeline is really messy but I can't say it wasn't funny to debate about that.
Then BotW came and just tossed the entire thing away with the explanation "Yeah, BotW is in all timelines."
To make things worse, TotK then completely ruined everything. Basically, Hyrule was long destroyed but then rebuilt by the Zonai. Then a new Ganondorf was born and the whole imprisonment war and 10000 years of Calamity began.
I guess they ultimately decided to abandon the timeline. No wonders, they also abandoned everything which made older Zelda games unique...
Someone asked the devs why all Sheikah devices, guardians and the Divine Beasts disappeared.
Their response: "Well, they magically disappeared and nobody knows why."
Also them: "We don't want to have limitations in newer Zelda games", yeah sure!
Just say you don't gaf about the story anymore...
Yeah sorry but I call this BS.
It is not just about restrictions; with the current way how Zelda games are developed, you can hardly do a coherent storyline. There were 4 important side characters telling the same stuff, with the same scenes (ancestors fighting Ganondorf), this would have been avoided if the story had a more linear storyline. It's a fact. You can still make a vast explorable world with very few limitations whilst making a coherent story. Yeah sure, with a more coherent and linear story, it would also mean there's some more restrictions on the game but this is honestly better. The initial thought about open air Zelda games seemed good but we all saw the execution, me included.
120 repetitive shrines.
No coherent story.
Many less memorable areas in the story.
More unnecessary crafting.
There are good and bad parts about openworld games and BotW/TotK really stretched the bad ones to its near limit whilst improving on the good ones. Tbh, I'd rather have more restrictions but with a funny functional story instead of the new formular which feignings freedom because this freedom mainly touches the surface, not the issues which are brought by it.
I mean, it's perfectly good that you can explore the world in any way you like but it's just an excuse to not include proper storylines into the game. None of the other open world games like Elden Ring, Skyrim, Witcher or even GTA made you directly fight the final boss if you want.
So that's how the newer games will be?
Someone in the comments already mentioned it perfectly: Would we even like Midna as much if she appeared in BotW/TotK? Would she still get that kind of characterization which she got in TP? I don't think so.
And that's the issue about BotW/TotK storylines: They are not fluid and have no clear line. Everything just feels completely optional as if you're just doing some side quests. That shouldn't be the case with main quests. That's my take.
Plus, they talk about freedom vs restrictions but it is really that creative to make 120 (and in TotK, it's even 152 shrines - 32 more!) mostly repetitive mini dungeons like the shrines? The only different thing about them are puzzles but that's it.
At least dungeons had more individuality in TotK but they all still had the same objective about the 4 - 5 terminals. No keys, no locked doors, no secret paths, no mini boss, skippable puzzles (you can just glimb the walls in the Fire Temple for example). They talk about all that freedom stuff but freaking shrines have more restrictions (!) than the actual main dungeons. Is that really their intention?
If future Zelda games will have the same narrative, I'm thinking twice of buying those games... There's a lot of valid criticism and if they just toss all that aside because of "freedom", I doubt newer Zelda games will be that different to BotW/TotK and I wouldn't doubt they would ultimately "restrict" themselves way more by making absolutely limitless options in development.
I liked the creativity and mystery in older Zelda games. I liked all the dungeons, even the bad ones. I even liked the stories, the endless debates about the timeline. Now they just cut off everything interesting and unique about that and replaced it with new stuff, claiming "new and less restrictive stuff is better" and hoping the traditional Zelda fans will like it, hell naw.
Well, it's hardware-issues.
Just like how they actually tried to make Wind Waker similar to BotW - no joke - but the technical limitations didn't make it possible to go that far. They always wanted to build a very large world of pure adventure and exploration. Look up the earlier development of OoT - the map was 2x larger than it originally came out to be iirc.
But yeah, design-wise, Death Mountain always had different appearances but I guess, it's mainly an artistic choice because there wouldn't be any fun in climbing the same mountain in every Zelda game which looks visually the same. I mean, TotK already used the same map and look how many people were quickly bored because of exploring the same map.
I partially agree because Nintendo did intent to link some Zelda games with each other.
Some examples:
Ocarina of Time - Majora's Mask.
Wind Waker - Phantom Hourglass - Spirit Tracks
Twilight Princess.
And all games are somewhat connected to Ocarina of Time - WW, PH, ST, TP and MM.
Then there is AlttP which would put OoT as the prequel basically.
I wouldn't say that the official timeline makes sense - it really doesn't - but some Zelda games do have a clear timeline. Skyward Sword is basically the start of everything. But the Downfall timeline can easily be explained as parallel universes or some alternative reality in which Ganondorf won.
Yeah, the entire timeline is really messy but I can't say it wasn't funny to debate about that.
Then BotW came and just tossed the entire thing away with the explanation "Yeah, BotW is in all timelines."
To make things worse, TotK then completely ruined everything. Basically, Hyrule was long destroyed but then rebuilt by the Zonai. Then a new Ganondorf was born and the whole imprisonment war and 10000 years of Calamity began.
I guess they ultimately decided to abandon the timeline. No wonders, they also abandoned everything which made older Zelda games unique...
Someone asked the devs why all Sheikah devices, guardians and the Divine Beasts disappeared.
Their response: "Well, they magically disappeared and nobody knows why."
Also them: "We don't want to have limitations in newer Zelda games", yeah sure!
Just say you don't gaf about the story anymore...
It is not just about restrictions; with the current way how Zelda games are developed, you can hardly do a coherent storyline. There were 4 important side characters telling the same stuff, with the same scenes (ancestors fighting Ganondorf), this would have been avoided if the story had a more linear storyline. It's a fact. You can still make a vast explorable world with very few limitations whilst making a coherent story. Yeah sure, with a more coherent and linear story, it would also mean there's some more restrictions on the game but this is honestly better. The initial thought about open air Zelda games seemed good but we all saw the execution, me included.
120 repetitive shrines.
No coherent story.
Many less memorable areas in the story.
More unnecessary crafting.
There are good and bad parts about openworld games and BotW/TotK really stretched the bad ones to its near limit whilst improving on the good ones. Tbh, I'd rather have more restrictions but with a funny functional story instead of the new formular which feignings freedom because this freedom mainly touches the surface, not the issues which are brought by it.
I mean, it's perfectly good that you can explore the world in any way you like but it's just an excuse to not include proper storylines into the game. None of the other open world games like Elden Ring, Skyrim, Witcher or even GTA made you directly fight the final boss if you want.
So that's how the newer games will be?
Someone in the comments already mentioned it perfectly: Would we even like Midna as much if she appeared in BotW/TotK? Would she still get that kind of characterization which she got in TP? I don't think so.
And that's the issue about BotW/TotK storylines: They are not fluid and have no clear line. Everything just feels completely optional as if you're just doing some side quests. That shouldn't be the case with main quests. That's my take.
Plus, they talk about freedom vs restrictions but it is really that creative to make 120 (and in TotK, it's even 152 shrines - 32 more!) mostly repetitive mini dungeons like the shrines? The only different thing about them are puzzles but that's it.
At least dungeons had more individuality in TotK but they all still had the same objective about the 4 - 5 terminals. No keys, no locked doors, no secret paths, no mini boss, skippable puzzles (you can just glimb the walls in the Fire Temple for example). They talk about all that freedom stuff but freaking shrines have more restrictions (!) than the actual main dungeons. Is that really their intention?
If future Zelda games will have the same narrative, I'm thinking twice of buying those games... There's a lot of valid criticism and if they just toss all that aside because of "freedom", I doubt newer Zelda games will be that different to BotW/TotK and I wouldn't doubt they would ultimately "restrict" themselves way more by making absolutely limitless options in development.
I liked the creativity and mystery in older Zelda games. I liked all the dungeons, even the bad ones. I even liked the stories, the endless debates about the timeline. Now they just cut off everything interesting and unique about that and replaced it with new stuff, claiming "new and less restrictive stuff is better" and hoping the traditional Zelda fans will like it, hell naw.
Well, it's hardware-issues.
Just like how they actually tried to make Wind Waker similar to BotW - no joke - but the technical limitations didn't make it possible to go that far. They always wanted to build a very large world of pure adventure and exploration. Look up the earlier development of OoT - the map was 2x larger than it originally came out to be iirc.
But yeah, design-wise, Death Mountain always had different appearances but I guess, it's mainly an artistic choice because there wouldn't be any fun in climbing the same mountain in every Zelda game which looks visually the same. I mean, TotK already used the same map and look how many people were quickly bored because of exploring the same map.
I partially agree because Nintendo did intent to link some Zelda games with each other.
Some examples:
Ocarina of Time - Majora's Mask.
Wind Waker - Phantom Hourglass - Spirit Tracks
Twilight Princess.
And all games are somewhat connected to Ocarina of Time - WW, PH, ST, TP and MM.
Then there is AlttP which would put OoT as the prequel basically.
I wouldn't say that the official timeline makes sense - it really doesn't - but some Zelda games do have a clear timeline. Skyward Sword is basically the start of everything. But the Downfall timeline can easily be explained as parallel universes or some alternative reality in which Ganondorf won.
Yeah, the entire timeline is really messy but I can't say it wasn't funny to debate about that.
Then BotW came and just tossed the entire thing away with the explanation "Yeah, BotW is in all timelines."
To make things worse, TotK then completely ruined everything. Basically, Hyrule was long destroyed but then rebuilt by the Zonai. Then a new Ganondorf was born and the whole imprisonment war and 10000 years of Calamity began.
I guess they ultimately decided to abandon the timeline. No wonders, they also abandoned everything which made older Zelda games unique...
Someone asked the devs why all Sheikah devices, guardians and the Divine Beasts disappeared.
Their response: "Well, they magically disappeared and nobody knows why."
Also them: "We don't want to have limitations in newer Zelda games", yeah sure!
Just say you don't gaf about the story anymore...
a good story or lore is not a restriction, it’s the soul of a game
You can have an open world game and also a good story line + some linear areas like dungeons
It’s 1000% possible to combine the best aspects of both worlds
Botw was something new, they focused on new mechanics and open world aspects
This is why I can ignore the weak points of botw because the game had a different purpose and was a step into a new age
Totk on the other hand had the same world + same game physics and a great foundation for a story
They also had plenty of time (6 fucking years)
It’s just botw + new mechanics
The sky islands were pointless
I could design better ones with no experience
The depths were a cool concept but also with a lot of wasted potential
Totk is a good game but compared to other 3D Zelda's … fucking weak
Last edited: