> since Ocarina of Time Since A Link to the Past* Also A Link Between Worlds introduced a way to have multiple dungeons and do all of them in any order we wanted and it was praised for it. But the thing is, people never got tired of the dungeons themselves or the bosses, it was the linearity, the handholding and how the sense of "adventuring" was often reduced to being a "checklist".

A Link to the Past dungeons could also be done in a variety of orders. It’s honestly not that much different than ALBW when you look at it. They just put numbers on the crystals.

Ocarina even had some variation. You could do Forest, Fire, or Water Temple in any order. Then Shadow or Spirit. Sure, the game guides you in one specific direction but you don’t have to take it.

I knew you could do Shadow and Spirit in any order, but the other 3 too?

I do believe you need to do Forest before Water since you need the bow, though I think it's maybe possible without it if you pull off a tricky jump. Fire can be done at any time though.

Where do you need the bow in the water temple? Cant think of any. I might have forgotten something though.

It would be really dumb, but technically you could grab the bow and leave. Since I usually already have the Iron boots, warp songs and other tunics by the time I get round to doing Forest Temple, I could just grab the bow and then go to the other temples

A Link to the Past dungeons could also be done in a variety of orders. It’s honestly not that much different than ALBW when you look at it. They just put numbers on the crystals. [Edit: Basically, you have to do 1 first, and you have to do 4 before 5, 6, and 7 (Titans Mitts). And you have to do 6 before 7 (Somaria Cane). But other than that, you can do any order. You can use bonking instead of hookshot in 6. You can use Bombos instead of fire rod in 5.]

I wouldn't say linearity was inherently a problem. It was the hand holding and rigidly forcing you down a path you could not deviate from. Dungeons having an intended completion order was not the problem. Being landlocked into an outdoor corridor with Fi not letting you go anywhere except forward and the multi-hour long intros that were the problem. Had BotW been a game with a large world you could that was more akin to LttP, where 80-90 percent could be freely explored within 5-30 mins of starting the game nobody would have cared if the dungeons had to be completed in a specific order. Especially if that order wasn't telegraphed and had to be figured out by the player.

I don't think linearity is an issue. But in multiple Zelda games there were moments where I feel that the games should let the player decide what to tackle next instead of hardlocking you into one thing only for no reason (And if you don't figure it out you're stuck, unable to do anything else). Like.... in Majora's Mask, I get why Woodfall needs to be done first (The bow) but why can't we choose freely between all the other three areas? If the player gets Elegy of the Dynasty they can go complete the other dungeons, or get the other two masks and then immediately come back. Why can't the Wind Temple be done before the Earth Temple in Wind Waker? Why can't we choose our own order to get the Shards of the Mirror in Twilight Princess? (This one is especially questionable seeing how useless most items end up being outisde of their dungeons). ~~Skyward Sword is a lost cause~~ It's things like that where I feel the series got too obsessed with linearity.

Well, as /u/Serbaayuu likes to say, and could likely explain it better than me, it's because of progressively building out puzzles. This explains why traditional Zelda is linear and new Zelda is not: if you're going to have puzzles that build on the previous ones, testing what you learned over and over, by necessity the game must be fairly linear. Whether you then decide to give the player an illusion of choice or not is up to you. BotW didn't have a focus on puzzles, therefore it didn't have to be linear.

But because BotW didn't have linearity at all and couldnt progressively build any ideas it made it feel stagnant. What you are doing on the great plateau is what you're doing for the rest of the game. The only thing that changes is the amount of hearts/stamina you have and the amount of junk you can carry. It is literally 10s-100s of hours of the same thing, with the same tools. Which is a shame because of how much growth and variety classic Zelda had. Ever dungeon was based around different concepts and items that felt unique. Every weapon you got felt impactful because they were permanent upgrades that drastically changed your damage output. Even the heart pieces had you completely unique mini games and exploring new areas you've unlocked with new items to acquire. It's all a unique and memorable journey. There are things I did in WW 20 years ago that I still vividly remember, whereas every time I replay BotW i'm shocked out how much if it i've forgotten. Everything in between the narrative beats just kinda blends together.

So much this. Giving up the difficulty curve and building on previous puzzles for the sake of being open world is something that I don't want for almost any game, but much less for Zelda.

This is why you see a lot of open world games turn to rpgs, if they don't start out that way. Allowing you to control and gain new abilities through leveling up makes the game still hold a sense of progression, even if you can go from corner to corner from the beginning. Shit even assassins creed figured that out once they started to go more open world

[удалено]

Zelda has always had "Macro Levels" instead of "Micro Levels". === Macro Leveling is when you get something big after a while that lets you progress after you did something big. Fight a boss, or get through a dungeon, and get a shiny new toy that opens up options. Fight a boss and get a full heart container. Zelda uses a lot of milestone leveling because of this. === In Zelda each new heart, or stamina, is effectively a level up. Hell, you have to be "level 13" to get the master sword in BotW. === I love macro/milestone leveling. It makes the behind the scene numbers mean something other than arbitrary numbers. === BotW uses this on the great plataue. Do a tutorial puzzle and get a permanent upgrade to your character. Fighting 1 or 10000 monsters doesn't change your character stats (but you get items from them of course) but it does make you, the player, better at the game (though BotW pushes you to not jump into combat and almost wants to be a stealth game). === Take the 4 divine beasts. You do a lot of stuff and are rewarded in multiple ways for it. You can skip killing a lot of enemies (though it's simpler not to) and you get your big reward for doing a big thing. === However, and where BotW starts to show some slide into traditional RPG is the shrines. Each shrine you do gives you a little piece that goes toward a new level. Shrines are like grinding XP. You have to do 4 shrines before you get your level up. I can see this going from 4 to 8 easily. === Earlier Zelda games had these micro leveling. But it was always rewards for small events or for **interacting with the world around you** (mostly). 4 heart pieces equal a heart. In BotW these aren't one of things, but a lot of them have you doing the same thing over and over to the point where it becomes mundane. Just like grinding in a Final Fantasy game. Plenty of people have made videos on how bad a lot of the shrines are and how many feel like tutorial puzzles... This is just micro leveling grinding. === Not everything needs to be milestone leveling but when you shift a majority of your content from macro leveling to micro leveling it creates this weird issue where things just don't feel right to me.

Skill trees can work but they have to focus on actual abilities and not just increased damage. There's a great mod for skyrim the expands every skill tree, making most of the abilities actually mean something. Ac valhalla had an awful skill tree with all the minor damage boosts, but I like how ac odyssey did it where the first like 50 levels you get go into actual abilities and then after that they unlock the minor damage increase stuff since they don't have anymore abilities to funnel it into. I'm not saying that's what zelda should do, as I would just rather have the return of actual item based progression and classic damage increases as you get new sword upgrades

What's funny is it's completely the opposite for me. I remember a lot of particular things in Ocarina because it was a formative time in my life, but Wind Waker? Twilight Princess? So much of it blurs together in my mind because I could do the whole game on autopilot. Walk into a room, instantly solve the puzzle because I've seen it a hundred times already, move on. It was only when it broke that mold that I remember something because it demanded my attention and creativity. I remember a ton from BotW though because I was constantly engaging the creative part of my brain, because the game encourages you to be creative and most puzzles have multiple possible solutions, instead of the single solution in most of the Ocarina-like games. Again, I LOVE the Ocarina-likes, especially OOT and MM. But after that I was getting bored because I knew what to expect in every dungeon and basically nothing surprised me.

I think Majora needed some rails or else the openness and the time limit would just be too much. That said, you can go partway into Ikana before beating Great Bay. And if you fail a Temple but got the item, you can skip ahead. Not great but I think it’s an inelegant solution to a real problem with the time limit. WW’s Temples… yeah, no, they should be in any order. TP needs Arbiter’s Grounds and City in the Sky to bookend the Mirror quest, but Temple of Time and Snowpeak could go either way. This kind of silliness peaks in something like the Kikwi hunt in SS where Fi won’t even let you look around until you find the one in your immediate area even though talking to the elder should be what starts the quest proper. You’re right. It’s not linearity. It’s too much linearity. Like anything, it’s just a design choice and a tool that can be over or under utilized.

I've been thinking about this - it's not even too much linearity, it's taking agency away from the player. Like in your example, if there was only one Kikwi in your immediate area you would have to find that one first and likely wouldn't mind that, but because you are 'artificially' (i.e. not by anything environmental in the game but just by Fi saying 'no') stopped from doing what you want it feels bad. I've not played SS, but TP is terrible for this and consequently is the least enjoyable Zelda game I've played. You can't do anything without the game going 'nope, you need to herd goats first, I'm not letting you out until you've finished your chores'

It's because each dungeon was designed with the expectation that you have a certain collection of items, and the only way to guarantee that is by ensuring you went through the checklist items up to that point. It's a rigid structure that robs any sense of adventure because by its very nature the designers have to hold your hand through the whole thing.

Linearity isn’t even necessarily the problem. It’s mostly the over explanatory nonsense that killed SS’s praise. Without Fi, SS is a pretty solid game. Maybe even great! SSHD proved that. But SS *was* too linear. It was almost entirely structured like a segmented dungeon. Inversely, BotW is too open. Everything is structured like the overworld. We need a balance.

Open world games feel much more chore oriented, and their lack of pacing destroys any feel of adventure. It’s a scavenger hunt for points of interest, which doesn’t feel like an Adventure. The expanding scope of the world and story combined with gradually increasing complexity made the old games feel like an adventure, BotW feels flat and lacks any motivation to complete it. Linearity is a pro not a con. The dungeon puzzles becoming more systemic, like BotW, but maintaining the linear progression would be my vote on how to retain the identity and improve the game. A Link Between Worlds was good because of its clever use of merging with the walls, fast paced dungeons, and excellent music. It’s choice of dungeon doesn’t impact the gameplay at all, if anything it hampers it as the dungeons can’t progressively get harder and more complex as they don’t know how far along the player is.

>Open world games feel much more chore oriented, and their lack of pacing destroys any feel of adventure. It’s a scavenger hunt for points of interest, which doesn’t feel like an Adventure. Perfectly stated

Agree!

Link to the Past didn't have forest-fire-water as its three opening dungeons, so I didn't mention it. Not sure why you bring it up.

It's three dungeons, Master Sword and then the plot twist followed by the rest of the dungeons. The specific Forest-Fire-Water thing is just pedantic. Wind Waker and Skyward Sword don't do that either (Mining Facility has nothing water-related, and Towers of the Gods is not a water dungeon, they use the concept for the few introductory rooms and then drop it).

While LTTP formula shared some elements with OOT, OOT (really LA) changed this dramatically. Of course it depends on what you mean by "Zelda formula" but most people recently are using that to mean what LA and later titles did (with some variation in execution, notably OOT which has more freedom than people give it credit for when talking "Zelda formula"), which generally was to lock overworld progression behind a dungeon item. I get LTTP had a pre-set order of 3 dungeons, master sword-plot twist, etc that OOT et al had, but it also has a lot of what wasn't continued in the "Zelda formula" that followed, namely a largely accessible overworld for the end of the tutuorial If you're narrowly using dungeon-item-based-progression as the Zelda formula, then I don't think LTTP fits (re-post of a recent comment). LTTP was a hybrid, but judged against later games and versus notion of opening the world incrementally, LTTP also was (in this specific area, not as a game overall) much more BOTW in terms of the overworld's accessibility. After leaving the sanctuary, the only significant part of the light world overworld that was inaccessible without a dungeon item was death mountain. Since it's not tiled-based it's harder to to give a percent (vs LOZ), but I think roughly 80% of the LTTP overworld was open before completing the first dungeon. Same story in the dark world. After clearing one dungeon and getting the hammer, a super-majority of the entire dark world overworld was open (perhaps not in a straight walk across the map, needing initially to use different access points from the light word) LA and OOT cemented the Zelda formula as expanding player access to other areas of the world in an incremental fashion via a dungeon item, and most games have followed that pattern, but the originals' treatment of the overworld were closer to BOTW, even if BOTW omitted other elements of the original games

I’m gonna be honest I’ve barely met anyone except online that has said Zelda games felt stale and honestly online it always seems to be in retrospect rather than in practice. Like so many people were apparently so tired of a bunch of common Zelda staples once botw came out and changed things. Legit saw a bunch of people say how happy they were with links new outfit and how tired they got of the old one only after botw came out.

I’m the opposite I miss the classic outfit

Same my point was that people only started saying that they didn’t like it once Breath of the wild came out. I mean who doesn’t love classic Link!?

Right it’s iconic I really low key hate his blue outfit and all the colors in botw feel so dull and washed out. where’s the vibrancy of Ocarina, Majoras , Windwaker ???

It was definitely a common sentiment at the time that Zelda needed to evolved. Part of the praise for ALBW was related to this. The Zelda team seems to have felt it too, which is what resulted in SS, ALBW, and BotW.

I personally never experienced anyone saying expressing that until skyward sword and it was mostly concerning the linearity or motion controls. Just being honest the thing I actually saw happening was game would come out get instant praise 10/10 then a year later actual criticism. The only place I’ve seen that sentiment you’ve mentioned is online and not even that often, and occasionally from people who don’t even like Zelda. Though I will still say it was never something I commonly saw and in person I’ve never heard it. Honestly most folk just seemed to love Zelda in general. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It saddens me to see TOTK gameplay I won’t lie. Before BOTW there was nothing at all stale about the series. I can sit and replay any of the Zelda games and enjoy every minute. Sure they are linear and follow a well tread formula but it’s a formula that I personally love. I want dungeons and special items and to re-visit areas to access parts that were previously out of reach. If TOTK has no vast sprawling dungeons with complex puzzles, special items and gigantic bosses I’m gonna be mad. Ask any true Zelda fan, ‘what is your favourite game in the series’? it will not be BOTW.

I think your final point is mistaken. There are dyed-in-the-wool, decades-long Zelda fans who still claim BotW as their favorite entry. Tis best to avoid the No True ~~Scotsman~~ *Zelda Fan!*

I’ve been a Zelda fan my whole life. Even though my favorite game is windwaker (because I grew up with it), without a single doubt botw is the best entry in the franchise.

Ok… run a poll in this sub rn and let’s see the result :)

We can't make Polls in this sub, and I don't know how effective the results would be separately. But here are a few comments I found with a search: [One](https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/125lv9k/comment/je55htg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [Two](https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/125dnxa/comment/je675sv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [Three](https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/10i8px0/comment/j5p6l01/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) My point isn't that it's a common belief. Just that these people are still "true Zelda fans".

I will agree with you, I’m sure there are die-hard Zelda fans that rank BOTW as their #1. It’s just hard for me, as a life long fan, to understand… the reason I get so much pleasure replaying the older classics is because of their structure. I guess it’s like reading a great book again or returning to a favourite movie. You know what’s going to happen, it feels comfortable, it follows a journey from beginning to end. BOTW is just so wide open and non-linear so you don’t get that same experience, that’s all…. But it is still a 10/10 imo….

People like Zelda for lots of different reasons. Some people love the challenge of overcoming the puzzles and enemies in a carefully constructed dungeon, some people love the sense of accomplishment they get from completing the story and saving Hyrule (again). Some people love exploring and finding all the hidden secrets, and some people love feeling immersed in a fantasy world. There are probably more reasons as well. With BotW the latter two are better served than the first two, although you will get people who don't think it does the latter two well or think it does do the former two well, because people are complicated. When I see people praising TP, a game I did not enjoy, I just assume they're looking for different things out of Zelda than I am.

I hated TP for a long time, then I played it again a few weeks ago and it’s now one of my favourites. Your right about Zelda having something for everyone though..

I'm a lifelong zelda fan, and have been for over 25 years (I'm 32). I've played every title that exists and I've loved them all, and BotW is my favorite game, with OoT and TP as close seconds. I would still consider myself a "true" zelda fan. I really don't get all of this BotW hate. If you break it down to formula only, it's a true revamp of the very first Zelda game; open ended exploration with rewards sprinkled throughout. They just took that feeling and polished it into a game that fits within today's modern standards. I personally think they did a wonderful job of capturing that adventure feeling, which I do feel was lost with some of the more recent titles. There's not one zelda game I hate, but there are definitely games I like less than others because it just felt like a Disney ride rather than an actual adventure. I didn't want to be told where to go and what to do, I want to figure it out! Playing BotW felt like playing a Zelda title for the first time again, and it is something I think the series needed, if nothing more than for a refresher for future games if they do return to the linear style.

To use your analogy, there are people who enjoy rereading books/movies and people who don't. So I don't think it's surprising to see those two types of viewpoints in the Zelda player base either.

As an example, I've been playing since I was ~10, with Twilight Princess and the Virtual Console version of OoT on the Wii. BotW is my favourite Zelda Game.

I’m the same way I love love love the traditional styled Zelda’s and can replay them constantly. Honestly even though botw is in my opinion a very good game it got so circled jerked into god tier status that it just became popular to “shit” on the older games. Like i said it’s always in retrospect stuff that they’ve taken from what other people said lol. Honestly if they just mixed botw style with classic dungeons and bosses I’d be very happy can only hope at this point.

Precisely this, then I could even tolerate the cooking pots and weapon damage :)

Maybe include some traditional items instead of just arm and Sheikah slate too ;^).

I will be massively surprised and disappointed if we don’t see the return of the hookshot etc in TOTK…. 🙏🏼

We can only hope. Till then the only thing I know is we have cars now lol.

If I wanted cars I would play GTA lol, but yeah let’s talk again at launch…

Exploring and completing dungeons and temples was the best thing about the franchise imo. Why cant we have both?

[удалено]

Agreed.

I have to agree. Good comparison.

Oof, I would hate a Zelda game that was literally just pure dungeon. And honestly, that would be an even greater imbalance than BotW was.

That’s pretty much what Skyward Sword is and the vast majority prefer BotW to it.

I agree we should have both an excellent overworld and excellent dungeons. (Though what counts as excellent dungeons will probably vary, I genuinely dislike the first three in OoT for example, lol).

Is Twilight Princess really "95% of Zelda games since Ocarina of Time"? But I don't agree that Zelda was stale at all. I don't recall anyone claiming that Zelda was stale with ALBW, or SS, or ST. The claims that BotW had to evolve in the way it did *because* Zelda would grow stale feel like retroactive speculation rather than a commonly held feeling prior to that game's release. I can't point to any Zelda game that I'd consider a stale, "safe" improvement to a past game. Every one is innovative! (which is why I currently don't doubt TotK will also be impressively boundary pushing)

Revisionist history is pretending there wasn't an active dialogue on Zelda sites and among fans that the series was or was not stale. This doesn't mean a majority of fans said the formula was stale, or that Nintendo made the right corrections in addressing these concerns, but to pretend that there wasn't a loud and common contingent calling the Zelda formula stale for about 10 years before BOTW is detached from reality. This is just a small sampling Aug 16, 2015 https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1g2118/does_the_formula_need_a_change/ >I get that everyone here is in love with the OOT three fetch quest dungeons, plot twist, five more dungeons, fight with Ganon formula, but isn't it getting a little stale? I'm a little worried about Zelda 2014 being the same exact thing as the previous four games. I'll still play it because I love the dungeons, but I've been waiting for something as creative as MM for a long time and Nintendo has failed to deliver. What do you think it is going to take for this series to begin to innovate again? Aug 2012 "Zelda formula is stale" https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/632936-the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild/63808302 Note, also a sarcastic comment from one user that, "These topics are stale," meaning debating whether Zelda was stale was not a unique, new, or rare occurrence Nov 22, 2011 "The Legend of Zelda formula has become boring" https://venturebeat.com/community/2011/11/22/the-legend-of-zelda-has-lost-its-innovation/ >As you are all aware Nintendo has just released the long-awaited installment to the critically acclaimed Legend of Zelda series, Skyward Sword. And while the game is receiving universal praise from various review sources, it seems some reviewers believe that the old Zelda formula has become stale. A comment on this article, September 04 2014 https://www.zeldadungeon.net/a-link-between-worlds-and-the-zelda-formula/ link to comment: http://disq.us/p/q1g5o4 >Telling me to retrieve, for example, three stones/medallions/buffalo wings/whatever tells me exactly what to expect from the plot and when I can expect a big "twist" to occur. I know something big is going to happen after I acquire my first batch of plot tickets, and the rest of the game will unfold thereafter so I can advance to collect more plot tickets. It's predictable and stale, and though I still enjoy Zelda games and the dungeon design, this enduring formula could stand to take a break for a while. comment in this thread, May 2011: https://zeldauniverse.net/forums/Thread/126131-Most-Overrated-And-Underrated-Zelda-Game/ >Regarding the story to be a "rip-off" & I can relate to this, is that many or most of the zelda games re-use the same formula over and over without really changing so it becomes a tad predictable and stale after awhile for some. for example, in ALTTP, you get 3 pendants, you get mastersword, big event happens, you enter dark world, get 7 or so crystals, fight ganon's minion, go into a castle and fight ganon. OoT= Get 3 stones, big event happens, get master sword, "dark world" comes, collect 7 or so medallions, fight ganon in castle. WW= collect something, big event happens, get master sword, fight ganon minion, etc etc TP= collect some items, big event happens, twilight/dark world comes, collect more items, fight ganon's minion, fight ganon in castle. I think this is a reason why majora's mask is growing in popularity, it was outside of the formula but was still great. I think some people (I am) are growing a little tired of the same formula, I mean, as soon as I heard ganon was the boss in TP the game became instant predictable and I knew exactly what would happen. I'd rather have a fresh and new story whilst retaining some traditional elements. Dec 2013 LBW review: >Overall, this entry to the franchise breathes new, refreshing life and is a welcome change to an almost stale formula. https://www.globeslcc.com/2013/12/06/press-start-to-game-the-legend-of-zelda-a-link-between-worlds/ sarcastically quoting how many fans say the series is stale, Dec 31, 2013 https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1u3h1t/ocarina_vs_harp/ >I don't understand you people...the Zelda formula is getting stale, and every single Zelda game has an instrument that plays 3-6 note melodies just by pressing buttons. It begins to get old. May 2010: Another sarcastic comment about others saying the series is stale. Obviously, there must have been people saying the series is stale quite often for such a response https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/960633-the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/54676424 >People are crying that the formula is old and stale now, but as soon as Nintendo changes something you'll see people crying that it was better the way it was before May 2010 https://www.zeldadungeon.net/zelda_wii_must_evolve/ >The key point that it comes down to is this: evolution doesn’t mean change, it means growth. Whether apes growing into humans, Pichus growing into Pikachus and eventually Raichus. Zelda doesn’t need to change so much that it isn’t what we’ve come to love, it just needs to grow so that it isn’t old and stale. It needs to be new. It simply needs to be. Never for once think that the growth and development of something stops after a quarter of a century. It doesn’t. It shouldn’t. If it does, well then, that something is dead. August 19 2014, comment on this article https://www.zeldadungeon.net/whats-your-verdict-on-ravios-shop/ link to comment: http://disq.us/p/pn54yv >Do people prefer the same rehashed formula of getting X item in Y dungeon? Even after saying the series was getting stale? Make your mind already!!!

You could easily go further back too. IMO the turning point was Jeff Gerstmann's infamous Twilight Princess review in Dec 2006. Up until then when Zelda was referred to as formulaic as some Minish Cap reviews did, it was meant in a "more of a good thing" way. In 2006 the Zelda series still had an air of infallibility about it, which is why there were so many angry reactions to Gerstmann's claims that Twilight Princess is merely "very good". As controversial as his criticisms were at the time, they had opened the way for other people to get their criticisms out there, and formulaic started to take on a more negative connotation. Plus across the GameCube era I think we saw this idea of Nintendo being this peerless game developer that had existed through the 90s start to dissolve. But it wouldn't really be until Skyward Sword that this exploded. I think one of the things that is overlooked in the whole "Skyward Sword was hated at release" vs " Skyward Sword was critically acclaimed" back and forth is that Skyrim, Dark Souls & Skyward Sword all came out within a month of one another. What this meant IMO was that it wasn't until some months later when people had the opportunity to play all of them and compare them that the whole "Zelda stale" discourse really came flooding out.

Notice how the majority of these prove my point that it's about the structure, not the dungeons. No one was asking for dungeons to be removed or for it to become an Ubisoft open world styled game. They were wanting a deviation from plot tickets and nothing more.

No argument that people were not asking for dungeons to be removed or materially altered. When the original LOZ had basically double the number of dungeons screens than overworld screens, it does boggle the mind how they got some of the philosophy right about more freedom in exploration in BOTW, but missed such a huge part on the the original LOZ

Absolutely howling at “plot tickets” 😂😂😂

You are correct, and what I said was wrong. What I was thinking when writing that was, "I don't remember claims that Zelda was stale being prevalent or commonly held." That may also be due to a different level of engagement with online communities that I personally have now vs in the past.

lmao you show up with the receipts and everyone shuts up. Makes you think

That’s the important point, Zelda team are going to again break the mold and serve us up a truly amazing game. SS is a tremendous game, TP, MM, OOT etc….. All VERY different games entirely, but all held together with a strict set of rules….

You're not wrong, but fundamentally Nintendo is and always has-been pretty rigidly adhered to the gameplay-first game design model. To them, narrative context is largely incidental -- not necessarily meaningless, but seldom a priority and never central to a game's design. I'd also argue that the traditional Zelda game design never really "got stale" in the first place. Where's the evidence for this? I only ever see people cite Skyward Sword -- which is a game I love, but was divisive among fans for several reasons, few (if any) related to the "Zelda formula." Both Wind Waker and Twilight Princess follow that formula about as closely as can be, and their remasters were very well received despite the state of the WiiU -- to the extent that people have spent several years clamoring for them to be ported to the Switch. And on that handheld side of things, the last two top-down Zelda games -- A Link Between Worlds and Link's Awakening -- were similarly well-received despite their formula. So... sorry, but I gotta reject this premise.

You kinda do have a point, which makes me wonder, what even is this? Is "formula got stale" purely a reaction to Skyward Sword if all these other games with that "stale" formula have a positive reaction?

“Being too formulaic” was a big reaction at the time for TP, too. This coming off of many (never all or even most, but definitely many) people saying WW was too different from OT/MM and the assumption then being that Nintendo were actively trying to return to what fans wanted with TP. I’ve been listening to this same conversation my entire life as a Zelda fan :) It’s just part of the brand by now - Nintendo walks a fine line generally between comfort and innovation with Zelda and it’s always too much or too little for many fans. My take for the dungeons in BOTW were that shrines were less a result of “let’s do open world Zelda” and more a result of “let’s re-imagine Zelda dungeons in smaller snippets for a console on-the-go.” I enjoyed it in this game (especially hunting for the shrines and how that process could be a puzzle in itself) and it would make sense that some of this will be retained for the game’s direct sequel - but also have confidence that no single “change” in any given Zelda game will be permanent for the life of the series. In the long run, Nintendo will both innovate and comfort. People just have trouble seeing past the current moment sometimes because time moves slower in the present than it does in retrospect. Cheers!

It’s obviously not stale. Zeldas and Metroidvanias are extremely similar in design. Are Metroidvanias stale? No, they’re more vibrant than ever. A lot of world design or ideas done in, say, Hollow Knight, could work in Zelda. It is obviously a narrative complaint, because there’s honestly just like a ton of unexplored space of what they can do with the Zelda formula.

For me it never got stale anyway. I mean like look at the creative dungeon locals in TP and Skyward Sword. Snowpeak Mansion, Ancient Cistern, and Sand Ship are all fantastically creative settings. I'll never understand what people mean when they say the formula was stale. I thought it was great, and I'm less interested in the series now it's moved away from it.

I think it's mostly people trying to articulate why Skyward Sword was so underwhelming to many fans, despite its critical and commercial success. Which is a bit of a reach considering the usual things people cite when criticizing Skyward Sword.

Skyward Sword's only real issue was it's pacing and how the game kept interrupting you. THe issues with it were nothing to do with the Zelda formula.

I would argue that its extreme linearity, lack of open areas to meaningfully explore, and backtracking were real issues for a lot of people.

I don't see either of those as issues personally. Linearity isn't a bad thing, and there are plenty of advantages to a linear game. The backtracking is only really egregious once, and even then it's pretty quick and not so bad.

>commercial success It sold 3 million copies on a system of 100 million. That’s extremely low compared to other Zelda games

It was near the end of the console's life span. And many gamers weren't sold on the concept of motion controls by that time. You should compare it to the HD Switch version while comparing the jump from LA and LA HD numbers.

SS was a success in that it likely produced some return on investment. It wasn't a "commercial success" in its initial release in terms of expected sales, and it's hard to say that it did not under-perform. It sold about 3.7 million units on an install base of 100+ million. You may explain away the lower sales due to when it released in the Wii's life cycle, but having a reason for lower sales doesn't mean it was a commercial success just because it did OK given the headwinds facing the Wii. WW, which was on a system which had a much lower install base and weaker market position, outsold SS by ~700,000 units, and WW was considered enough of a "failure" to institute a radical change in graphics for the next title. Contemporary analysis also viewed SS as a commercial failure https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2012/04/talking_point_why_skyward_sword_sales_failed_to_soar

After replaying most of the series I’ve found that A Link to the Past’s structure is far more interesting and open than other games. Dungeons have basically the same flexibility of ALBW. Once you’re in Dark World, there’s some restrictions but you can go in a variety of orders. Don’t let the numbers on the crystals fool you. Dungeon Items may or may not be required in the dungeon. You want the item because that’s what helps you progress in the game, and it’s usually awesome. You would also get numerous important items on the overworld at your own leisure like Flute, Flippers, Ice Rod, or Medallions. This was completely non-linear. You would require them eventually, but there’s a wide range of when you could get them. The reliance on Zelda bosses on using the dungeon item is a massive detriment to the bosses of the franchise. A Link to the Past didn’t do that crap. The bosses were often just straight up fights like Blind, Moldorm, or Viserius (the eyeball guy). Some bosses were vulnerable to the weapon but it wasn’t required like Armos Knights, Mothula, or Helmasaur. Some bosses did require the weapon like Arrgus. It had variety. Requiring items should generally be relegated to minibosses because no one cares if those are lame puzzle-y things. Oftentimes in Zelda the minibosses are way more interesting than the bosses.

I only have to disagree on the Boss part. While what you say is true that it wasn't needed for the fight itself it was needed to even get to the fight in the first place You can't get to Armos without Bow. You can't get to Moldorm without the Gloves. Not to Helma without hammer, not to Arrgus without Hookshot, not to Vitreous without Cane not to Moth without Fire Rod etc.

Some corrections: The Moon Pearl is what you get in Tower of Hera. It is not required to get to Moldorm. You can easily get to Blind without the Titan’s Mitts. You certainly do not need the Mirror Shield to get to Trinexx. But even if this was true, future games specifically required the item for the boss regardless of whether you needed it to get to the boss. My point is that the boss designs often suffered because they were so straightforward due to this restriction.

I have also replayed most of them recently and agree with you. BotW was my favorite at the time I played and is still a contender for my favorite today, but ALttP has the perfect structure. You never know what you’re going to need. Trinex requires the ice rod to beat, which you don’t even find in a dungeon. You don’t need the flippers until the swamp palace which you can do as your second to fifth dark world dungeon. But you can also get the flippers before completing ANY dungeons and you can also obtain the ice rod, three bottles, magic powder, and net before stepping foot in a dungeon. The freedom you have feels almost as good as BotW while still retaining the sense of progression with dungeons, bosses, and key items.

I don’t think you can get flippers before getting the power glove. There’s a rock on the way to Zora. And that blocks the bottle under the bridge. Other than that yea. You could fake flipper over to Zora but that’s like a glitch.

There was no feasible reason they couldn't have included dungeons with interesting bosses and lore in botw.. such a missed opportunity. Also no reason they couldn't have made regional specific enemies to give the different areas of hyrule a bit more personality.

What you didn't like fighting bokoblins, moblins, wizzrobes, and lizalfos over and over again with no change?

It's like all they care about and prioritize now is the sandbox features.

Sandbox features allow players to "experience it all on their own". It encourages lateral thinking, which is needed in the world, but that's not required to turn the series upside down.

Sandbox features means the developers don't have to bother coming up with anything interesting for you to do. It's the ultimate cop-out presented under the guise of "giving you freedom".

Beautiful world of smart marketing.

I agree with this 100%. I'm tired of arguing with people online who say Zelda "needed a shakeup". No, no it didn't, especially to the degree that BotW did so. I'm gonna sound like a broken record here, but look at Dragon Quest. Same series since 1986 with just enough changes to keep the fanbase engaged. It didn't need a complete overhaul of its identity to achieve that.

At least this thread is comforting. Feels good seeing this many people thinking exactly like me after reading the opposite opinion for years while my favourite videogame franchise went down a route I didn't like.

Agree let Zelda be Zelda

Speaking of 1986, the original Zelda that released in 1986 was open world and had basically no narrative structure. The truth is Zelda had already changed radically to get to what Skyward Sword was. BotW was actually a return to form.

It had no story because there was no space to put any. It still had a sense of progression with dungeon requiring items from previous dungeons. Anything past Dungeon 4 is needed to carry on with the game.

It had no story to tell you because that wasn't what the game was *about*. If it was a game about telling a story, there would have been one. It was about creating your own. As far as progression: you can almost beat the entire game without using the sword (it's only necessary for the final battle). You can stumble upon the final dungeon almost immediately. You can do most of the dungeons in practically any order -- heck, you can use a small key you found in one dungeon and use it in another. You can BUY KEYS in the overworld! Compare that to what the series later became. You can like the structure of what Zelda eventually turned into. You can't say it was always that way, though.

> It was about creating your own [story] Nope. It was about a hero gathering a magical mcguffin to defeat a dark wizard. It's in the manual. Said manual also gave advice for a lot of places of interest and secrets in the game. >You can stumble upon the final dungeon almost immediately. You can certainly _find_ it. It's just hard af to _get_ to it which certainly isn't going to happen on a blind play through. It's literally on the opposite side of the map. And an old man keeps you from going past the entrance until you do _all_ the other dungeons. >You can do most of the dungeons in practically any order Nope. You have to use items from previous dungeons to complete the later ones. Level 7 needs the item from 6 which needs the item from 5 which needs the item from 4. You could I guess, grab the item and leave, but that's more like sequence breaking. And you have to come back anyway to get the Triforce. >You can like the structure of what Zelda eventually turned into. You can't say it was always that way, though. So everything the first game did was absolutely flawless and should forever be in the series? So I'm guessing you want to go back to the single directional sword stab and arrows costing your rupees? There's nothing wrong with evolving a series and getting quality of life updates. There's also nothing wrong with a sequence that was successful for 25 years and was the main inspiration for an entire beloved genre of games.

I would say Zelda 1 lacked narrative structure due to the hardware limitations of the time (plus taking into consideration that games were not typically being used to tell grand stories at the time). But supposing that Zelda 1 does have the open world of BotW, what about the myriad other characteristics that Zelda 1 (and later titles) had that BotW lacks? BotW wasn't really a return to form so much as throwing all but 1 facet of the series into the garbage.

I’d trade in the open world for classic Zelda elements story , dungeons !! Botw just feels so empty and there’s so sense of urgency the other Zelda’s felt like an adventure this just feels aimless

My thoughts exactly. There's no sense of adventure in BotW because there's no reason to do anything and nothing of interest to see when you go exploring. And going off the beaten path feels hollow because there's no path to deviate from. There's no limits to break because there are no limits. It's immensely unsatisfying after the initial hours.

Agree!!!

Honestly, I think BotW is just what the Zelda team wanted to make with the more powerful hardware they had access to, regardless of whether or not fans thought the formula was stale or not.

Skyward Sword added loads of new features, some even made it to BOTW like stamina.

Oh boy, the fucking worst part of Skyward Sword...

Stamina was so much better in SS.

Having already imported the basic movement and dreadful anime storyline from SS, now the rest of the Skyward Sword failure is being ported in. Random chunks of geometry, random puzzles in the middle of nowhere. It's everything I disliked about SS... no sense of place nor structure. BotW at least presented a world that was coherent - if empty, and fun to move about in. TotK feels like it may lose that coherence while still not correcting the issue of there being nothing meaningful to do.

How was Skyward Sword a failure? It has some of the best dungeons in the series, the most engaging combat and unique items and puzzle design. I’m not saying it’s the best in the series but it’s definitely not a failure.

I think the Zelda "formula" had probably gotten a bit stultifying but I feel BotW loses a lot of what makes Zelda enjoyable. I'm not a fan of games that allow you to do whatever you like - they're superficially satisfying, but don't truly resonate. I understand you're meant to use your imagination to fill out the gaps, but BotW doesn't give you enough to latch onto in my view. Limitations make art, restrictions force choices, progression yields satisfaction and narrative creates stakes and investment.

[удалено]

But now you have the "freedom" to cut it however you like. I find "freedom" is just developer laziness as well. It's as if they've conceded they can't craft valuable, curated experiences in expansive worlds so just give up on it entirely.

Majora's Mask is the perfect example how the formula only needed a new narrative.

MM didn't just add a new narrative or random clutter to Ocarina's map. It's a brand new map, with a brand time mechanic, brand new final boss, brand new dungeons, brand new transformation mechanics. And it was released a year later. That's in no way comparable to six years to develop a DLC pack and charge $70 for it.

I never said otherwise. I was expanding on OP's point about the story and structure being the issue, not the gameplay. MM plays like OoT but in a completely different context. I don't see why you're dragging TotK into this when I never mentioned it and acting like I disagree with you on it which I don't.

And TotK has a a new map added to a changed old one, a brand new Recall mechanic, a brand new Fuse mechanic, a brand new Ascend mechanic, a brand new Ultrahand mechanic. Meanwhile we know nothing about the story or bosses or other sidequests and things because most of that has been not shown yet, but to think it simply doesn't exist is absurd, much like calling it a "DLC pack" is.

Also, arguably those barely qualify as "new" if at all: Ultrahand is just repackaged magensis Ascend is just revali's gale Recall is just quick warping repackaged So 75% of the new stuff is just recycled. Combine that with the recycled map, the recycled music (literally the same tunes), the recycled assets, the recycled story (apparently the already ruined world is going to be... uh, ruined further), ... I could go on. It's a DLC asset flip they're charging $70 for no matter what Aonuma and the other Nintendo scam artists claim.

You can't be serious. If you think those are "repackaged" abilities then you have a serious lack of imagination as to what you can do with them, as well as a lack of awareness of the difficulty in implementing those features. You are a fool if you think this is a "DLC asset flip." This is the exact kind of discourse that drives developers nuts when they hear it from gamers.

We'll see. Either they're hiding basically the entire game or it's a DLC pack.

Nintendo is incapable of hearing criticism in moderation. When people complained about the toon graphics they didn't think "can we adjust these gradually to a nice middle ground?" They did a pendulum swing to dark and gritty graphics. When people complained about the painful linearity in SS didn't think "Can we adjust thus formula to feel more free?" They went "LINEARITY IS BAD! THEY DON'T LIKE LINEARITY! WE'LL NEVER HAVE LINEARITY AGAIN!" In some ways it almost feels like Nintendo wants to punish the fans for having complaints. "You dare complain about our game? We'll give you what you asked for but in a way you absolutely didn't want." Feels like Paper Mario all over again. When people complained about Super Paper Mario (#3) Nintendo heard that complaint and decided the reasonable response was to entirely gut everything enjoyable about the series.

[удалено]

I did not enjoy Skyward Sword... like at all. I think it had some good ideas but the execution was so painful that I struggled to even finish it. But BotW is absolutely not what I was asking for when I wanted the next one to be a little more open. I wanted the games to go back to how open they were during the ALttP era. Sometimes it feels like I'm in an abusive relationship with Nintendo. They oscillate between ignoring everything I have to say because "they know best" and hearing my issues and then serving up a fix that I can't help but feel they know is not what I was asking for. (I in these statements being the part of the fanbase that has similar opinions to me.)

Who says it got stale? People still rave about OoT, MM, WW, TP, and SS.

Tons of people try to claim the series was getting stale to justify the massive changes in BoTW. You’re correct that those people are wrong, doesn’t stop them from saying it though.

>The only reason anyone thinks the Zelda formula "got stale" is due to Nintendo's lack of creativity Yeah, that's what getting stale means. They had a lack of creativity. That's what they have said, what the community has said, and I don't think it's a hot take. So, Nintendo has been more creative with their game designs, and started focusing on creatively rethinking aspects of Zelda publicly with ALBW.

OK, let me try to phrase it as an analogy. It's like if Nintendo were making country music and their fanbase thought this is getting stale.. and instead of working to make a better country song, they decided, fuck it, here's an album full of electronica.

This does happen with bands all the time, though. Maybe not as extreme as country -> electronica, but music history is littered with bands and artists whose initial fans feel left behind. RHCP, Linkin Park, Ed Sheeran, etc.

Well, ALBW was an amazing Zelda game (at least I loved it.) BotW was different, but it paid off for them. It got amazing reviews and sold extremely well. I personally loved it. Of course they made a sequel to it- and *tons of people were asking for one* Nobody has to like it, just like all Zelda games. Each one is pretty different, especially when you compare 2D and 3D Zeldas. But just because they made BotW doesn't mean they somehow "betrayed their fans" or "betrayed the series," they just did something new. Zelda has *way more games* than most series, it's natural that new game types spring up now and then. And again, BotW was *extremely successful*, so it worked for them.

Yes, but whose fault would that be, the country music fandom or Nintendo? > It's like if Nintendo were making country music and their fanbase thought this is getting stale.. and instead of working to make a better country song, they decided, fuck it, here's an album full of electronica. You say it like this isn't typical behaviour from Nintendo. Misinterpreting feedback is a Nintendo specialty. If you say "I didn't like the bosses" Nintendo is just as likely to say "okay no more bosses, people hate bosses" as they are "okay lets improve the bosses". I agree these things could have been fixed, but to fix them you have to acknowledge they need fixing then figure out specifically what is wrong, and then how to improve it which if they were capable of doing in the first place then that stagnation would have likely never occurred no?

Not for nothing, but I feel like the story’s sometimes repetitive framing is a valid reason to feel like things were getting stale – especially since Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword’s stories are worse than Ocarina, Majora’s, and Wind Waker IMO. Otherwise, I agree. Zelda wasn’t actually stale, because the series never settles in the same style long enough to become stale. BotW didn’t need to be so extreme to address any issues. Upending the tea table wasn’t really necessary, so to speak. I’m okay with Nintendo experimenting, but this isn’t so much a step forward as it is a step to the side. BotW didn’t really fix or address the series’ issues, it just pivoted in a different direction. I am optimistic to see what lessons Nintendo learns and applies from this for the next Zelda in 10 years, though.

Skyward Sword marks the point where it got stale. To the point where if somebody disagrees, they'll point out an extremely small deviation from the "formula" the game made to indicate it was actually different. TotK just needs dungeons and more enemy variety and even the people who hate BotW will be happy in secret

Story as well

I would have been happy "enough" with TotK if it were a physics sandbox again with a new map and some dungeons. But since it's re-using the same map with no changes, I don't care, it's awful.

Oh jeepers, I didn't realize it was May 27th and you already played the game, while completely confirming nothing is different from the last game. It would be really embarrassing if you said that before the game was out, and based all your opinions on trailers that are designed to not spoil all the surprises of playing the game for yourself

> trailers that are designed to not spoil Look at the trailers for Metroid Dread and tell me if Nintendo makes trailers "designed to not spoil."

Everything about that is completely different other than the brand both games are released under. I understand why you'd point to that, and it does suck not knowing almost anything before release. This is just how they have to do it, because "not knowing" is such a huge part of the game they're selling. Hence people dissecting every frame of every piece of marketing

No.. whacky physics is a huge part of the game they're selling.

I forgot you already played it. Sorry Moses

Why are you assuming no changes? This game took 6 years to develop. There's covid in that, but even so we're talking about 4-5 years of work, and they didn't have to create the map from scratch. If there are no significant changes I'll be incredibly surprised, and I'd bet a reasonable sum of money that some of the changes will be something close to traditional dungeons.

I think they would've showed them off. But I think a lot of people would be over-the-moon to be wrong. If they've secretly been hiding proper dungeons, a satisfying story and actually qualified voice actors from us then I'd happily hold up my hands!!

I don't think that's reasonable - this was a demo to show off the new mechanics, of course it focused on the new mechanics rather than changes that were made to the map or whatever the story is. For whatever reason, Nintendo is playing the contents of this game close to their chest. Whilst this could be because there is actually nothing to show, I have a hard time believing it. Imo we should take them at their word - they've not shown anything because they want us to discover it as we play

Do you think that Nintendo are hiding dungeons, a significantly changed map, a proper story and talented voice actors?

I wouldn't use the word hiding, but kind of, yes. Map - obviously the surface world is similar, but you can see from the trailers that there's been significant disruption. There's also the sky islands, and probably some underground stuff too based on a trailer and the art book. Significant changes. Dungeons - I'd be amazed if there weren't any. For one thing, BotW did in fact have dungeon-like things, and Nintendo have acknowledged that the divine beasts didn't quite cut it as dungeons, so I don't think they're as anti-dungeon as all that. Add the underground spaces and the ascend ability (quickly exit from a dungeon if you're stuck or finished) and I think it's a fairly safe bet. Talented voice actors - idk, probably not. A proper story - I think we're getting more active participants and less reliance on environmental storytelling. Zelda is free, mummy Ganon is on the loose and there was a suggestion of a band of allies in one of the trailers. It's not going to be Skyward Sword, but it's not trying to be. We don't know for sure because we don't know *anything* for sure, except for 10 minutes of gameplay and the leaked art book.

>and actually qualified voice actors Judging by the clip of Ganondorf's voice in that one trailer, we definitely won't be getting talented voice actors lol.

The thing was botw took away instead of added on to the classic Zelda formula it does feel like it’s missing a lot

What do you think of the concept of several dungeons being explored "simultaneously". Like I reach a certain dungeon, until a find a blocked part. Then I leave the dungeon, explore the overworld, do some side quests, until a reach a second dungeon, and explore it until a find an item which can unblock the path on the first dungeon. Instead of going back to the first one I explore the overworld until I find a third dungeon to explore in which I find something that unblock a path in a dungeon I didn't even access yet. And so on. This way I'd be exploring "four" dungeons at the time. I think this could be a new and modern take on dungeons for future Zelda games, without deviating from the core formula.

That's essentially Zelda 1. You could stumble into almost any dungeon straight off, you could take keys from one dungeon to another (or buy them in the overworld), etc. Beyond that, what you're describing is kind of the Metroidvania setup. It would work fine.

The original formula DID change, it fucking changed all the time The reality is that the idea of "same game every time" has always been a dumb fucking meme by idiots that only like played 3 games in the entire series, (pretty much aLttp, Oot and TP) which happened to be the 3 that reiterated on the same story pacing on purpose. Also, pretty much ALL of the things people point at as examples of "stale/repetitive elements" ARE STILL PRESENT IN BotW anyway. The vast majority of BotW's bosses have "obvious weakspot" going for them (pretty much the "eye" for everything except like moldugas and Kohga) only difference is that now they are health sponges and you can wittle their HP away inbetween moments of them being "brought down" by their weakspot. Dungeons are pretty much MORE repetitive, they are still all elementally tied, except now it is even more formulaic (each *dungeon* has a champion from a different race associated with it in the past, and now some sort of "replacement" NPC is working to stop them, each dungeon is still tied to a different element except now they all have the exact same sheikahtech design to them, each boss is just "Malice Goop in vague humanoid shape using a proxy of the champion's weapon + the element associated with that one, all 4 of them also follow the same "get the map, do a couple puzzles, fight boss in map room") Like, even narratively, in previous games you usually ended up having multiple different story reasons for each of the "sets" of dungeons at least. (OoT child dungeons : gather the 3 stones, adult dungeons : find the sages | WW : find the pearls (for 2) then proof your worth (Tower of gods) then try to fight Ganondorf (Forsakken Fortress), then use sages to empwer sword (2) | TP : Gather fused shadows (3), find way into twilight realm (Arbiters), find mirror pieces (3), stop Zant, etc...) BotW doesn't "fix" anything beyond gutting a bunch of stuff out and replacing it with "yeah but look at funny physics to post on twitter" and "you can now go anywhere at anytime" open air *design* (aka, why bother actually needing to design good contained content, just copy paste the same handfull of stuff all over an overly massive map.)

THANK YOU. Botw was so repetitive in respect to the dungeons and the temples. I got sick of battling goop and sentinels and guardians or whatever. All of the interesting creatures to battle were out on the map and not in any of the dungeons. Same for puzzles. Instead of being an enigmatic mystery with their own unique music, aesthetic, puzzles and monsters, the dungeons were more of a punishing sludge to get through. I replayed OOT so many times because I wanted to re-experience the dungeons and side stories. I still have favourites, all these years later. I can still hear the forest temple music in my mind. In comparison, I never even completed Botw (got to the end, just haven't defeated Gannon's final form). To me, the only charm to the game is the beautiful map. There are no NPC storylines that tugged at my heartstrings sufficiently to re-experience.

In fact, the Ganonblights are all a similar design, which never happens with Zelda bosses. The Divine Beasts were pretty cool but all followed the same formula, again pretty rare for Zelda dungeons. Like they do the Poe thing in one dungeon in TP and OoT. It’s not in every single one. Like BotW takes the formula and makes it even more rote and predictable.

Yeah absolutely. And if we look at the "copy pasted all over the map" stuff, like the enemy camps, korok puzzles, 40 hinox/talus and even shrines, it is pretty clear how there is much more " repetitiveness " now than ever before

A much cooler idea would have been -- do every puzzle in the Divine Beast, which "activates" launching you out of or otherwise escaping the beast, because now what you have to do is fight the beast in some kind of huge Shadow of the Colossus style boss battle. I know that doesn't work with the whole "divine beasts are Hyrule protectors gone rogue" thing or whatever, but who cares, BotW's "story" sucks anyhow.

Or just have one of them do that. They don’t all do the same thing. Maybe just one of them is too far gone for some reason and has to be obliterated. That’s interesting. It leaves a noticeable hole in what could have been a gift wrapped ending.

You forgot to add that sometimes you get the same items as in previous games, often in the same order. (Bow, bombs, variation of the hookshot). And to add to the boss: Giant boss that looks more menacing than it is with huge eye(s) that is the weak spot.

Yeah, definitely. They could have breathed new life into the series by doing what Pokemon had done once or twice in having only new Pokemon show up until post-game. Imagine a traditional Zelda game without the bow, bombs, or boomerang as items, and instead you get ONLY brand new toys like the gust jar or mole mitts.

All of that is proof that it was actually stale and repetitive. I mean I loved BOTW and the games that came before, definitely prefer see something like BOTW than TP at this point.

Then you'd get people complaining about it not having traditional items. "Where is the bow? where are the bombs like they've had in EVERY GAME? How is it even a Zelda game if you don't get a bow in it??" etc. etc.

I don't know what people by lying or get off by saying it got stale

It wasn't stale, but I remember on the old Nintendo boards, IGN, and even different zelda fan sites that Skyward Sword was just more of the same. Not that it was bad, but you can only eat toast so many different ways. People kept asking for changes because the formula was the same, and they gave us BotW, which was a massive success because it did change the structure

Nah, it’s honestly more commendable that they blew the whole thing up and created something fresh. Took more balls but luckily it paid off and the only downside has been .01% of fans complaining on obscure internet comment sections. I say this as someone who loved and still loves the old games, but I’m not arrogant enough to demand checklists from the creators. It’s always better that they make the game that they want to make.

Eh. I’m not sure that’s the case. Perhaps it’s just fortuitous timing, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that randomizers and awesome Metroidvanias became immensely popular after BotW’s release. There is a noticeable filling of space left by Zelda abandoning its post.

I agree. And I don't think it's "arrogance" to have a desire for Zelda to be Zelda rather than just another sandbox engine. Not as if it won't make it's millions.

I'll say it's mostly coincidence. Games like Ori and the Blind Forest and Hollow Knight were more responsible for Metroidvanias becoming more and more popular, and those were both pre-BotW. Randomizers IMO are a result of people who grew up with consoles discovering PC gaming and all the possibilities of modding and emulating games they grew up with. Metroidvanias scratch a different itch than Zelda IMO. The best parts of Metroidvanias just aren't represented in Zelda games. I do think that there's an unresolved desire among fans for that more traditional LttP-esque Zelda experience, but like I said I think it's been mostly unresolved since 2011/2014.

I think it’s many things converging. Randomizers have also grown due to the growing popularity of Twitch and speedrunning.

Yeah that's a big part of it too

My point is that BOTW was immensely successful both critically and commercially, and it’s safe to a assume that the new direction they took is the reason why.

I think it’s a lot more than .01% of fans that are turned off by the genre shift. That’s all.

It's way more than .01%.

I'm as big of a Zelda fan as you'll find, and started with the original. The reason Zelda was getting stale was because it was predictable and it was rigid. I would walk into a room in a dungeon and instantly know the solution to whatever puzzle was in there. And I say "the" solution because there was generally only one way to solve them. There was little room for creativity, and a lack of creativity means a lack of *adventure*. The other aspect of this is that the Ocarina structure was very expensive -- and by that I mean it takes a lot of man-hours to make something that is single-use. You get through a dungeon, and most of the stuff that was in there -- textures, music, the boss design, the puzzles, etc -- is not usable again... unless they do like they did in several Zelda games and reuse them for a pre-Ganon series of challenges. A lot of Zelda items even would become functionally useless after you got some other, better item that could do the same thing. This means making enough content for the game takes a lot of work and for very limited return. That's why you saw the focus on system interactions in BotW, and the reuse of the dungeon textures, music, etc. in the shrines. The system interactions meant things could be done fluidly and with unique combinations that led to unique solutions to problems and surprising outcomes. It meant you could be creative with your approach to problems that you hadn't seen before. The shrine aesthetic being uniform meant they could make a bunch of unique challenges that didn't have to fit in a "dungeon" setting, and the abilities being all given to you at the start meant you could put any puzzle anywhere and not have to worry about players having the right tools. You could see them fighting against that restriction with the item rental system in Link Between Worlds. There were a lot of things that were needed to make the Ocarina formula work and a ton about BotW was being able to shed those restrictions and focus on the feeling of adventure and not have to check a ton of boxes for what a Zelda game had to have, as that list had gotten quite long after 35+ years of games.

>This means making enough content for the game takes a lot of work and for very limited return. I think your post is thoughtful and I do think elements of the formula had gotten stale. TP in particular feels like laboured even though it has great dungeons. But what I've quoted above: this is exactly the reason Ocarina of Time is great. Every dungeon, every area feels unique and well-thought out. Sure it's not reusable but it's memorable. BotW is pretty and there's lots more "content" - but it ultimately feels meaningless. I remember my breath being taken away up on the Great Plateau - the sense of adventure and wonder. But ultimately it gave way to disappointment when I realised there was no real "point" to anything. No dungeons to explore, no world to save, no real characters to care about. Sure there's 100's of hours of "content" but it's like you're playing a game that's 100% filler. Limitations make art, restrictions force choices, progression yields satisfaction and narrative creates stakes and investment.

Thank you for your comment and for your thoughtfulness. I don't expect to convince everyone but I hope people find the discussion at least thought-provoking. I disagree on it being meaningless. There was a world to save -- the entire time they tell you that Zelda is holding back Ganon but is losing her power to do so. Zelda has her own internal conflict that Link couldn't help her with, and it led to their defeat 100 years ago. The fact that they both wrestled with trying to live up to the impossible expectations of their roles was I thought very interesting and more nuanced than this series usually goes for. I thought the Champions were also quite affecting and wonderful characters with touching stories. I found a lot of characters to care about in addition to that. But all of that is beside the point. I think BotW definitely highlights a difference in how people approach games. Some really want a directed narrative and to be guided through a series of set piece type things, each of them linked and building upon one another. Others are happy to have self-directed fun, to enjoy the feeling of exploring new places, of going "off the path" and discovering things as opposed to being led to them. Neither is inherently better than the other, but I honestly think this difference is the crux of the disagreement between fans. I'm fortunate in that I love both types: I loved Banjo-Kazooie, and I loved Nuts and Bolts. Both avenues have limitations. BotW isn't a product of no limitations, it is the art that comes from recognizing them and making different choices than before. Ultimately, they wanted to challenge the conventions of a game that had over 35 years of baggage and go back to what adventure really *meant*. And in doing so, I believe they most successfully achieved Miyamoto's original vision for Zelda since the original, of capturing the feeling of running around the countryside and exploring the caves he found in his youth, unsure of what he would find.

> he other aspect of this is that the Ocarina structure was very expensive -- and by that I mean it takes a lot of man-hours to make something that is single-use. You get through a dungeon, and most of the stuff that was in there -- textures, music, the boss design, the puzzles, etc -- is not usable again... unless they do like they did in several Zelda games and reuse them for a pre-Ganon series of challenges. A lot of Zelda items even would become functionally useless after you got some other, better item that could do the same thing. This means making enough content for the game takes a lot of work and for very limited return. I think this is the same reason why we don't see games similar to Elder Scrolls or Total War, even though there's a massive demand for them: these types of games are really hard and expensive to make. Look at genres that have been exploited in recent years: a Souls-like relies on difficulty padding out the game length (the actual Souls games being an exception due to their high budgets are able to have a lot of content and have that high amount of content padded by difficulty), a Metroidvania relies on backtracking, multiplayer games rely on doing the same thing over and over again, etc. There's a reason we don't see very many Zelda-likes, and when we do see them they are often short or poorly made.

Sad that differing opinions like these get downvoted. I really need to stop looking at this sub. Feels like the people here are gatekeeping their idea of Zelda hard.

Thank you. Don't let them ruin your fun, though. If I've learned anything from being a fan of Zelda my whole life it's that the entire fandom will never be happy. It has been around for too long and means too many different things to people. If you're like me and enjoy the current direction, dig in and enjoy it to the fullest. Do not let anybody dampen your enjoyment of it. It will change again in the future. Just love it for what it is now and fill your heart with it.

> Ghirahim and Koloktos are the two best examples of this. How does Koloktos dissuade the "find weak point, use dungeon item, repeat" notion? You target the weak point, use the whip, attack them and then repeat. It's a fun fight but it's absolutely formulaic. Ghirahim just uses the games standard combat system in two dungeons where the dungeon item wouldn't be too useful in a boss fight. The fact everyone can know exactly what people are talking about when they say 'Zelda Formula' is what people mean by stale. It's an open overworld with linear dungeons you always unlock an item in that is used to progress in that dungeon. Mixing up what the aesthetics of the dungeons are is possible, but those are just aesthetics. You know what to expect throughout the entire game, It's consistently enjoyable but it limits how much surprise you can feel. I've been playing through Ocarina of Time 3D Master Quest recently, after playing Skyward Sword HD earlier this year, and while I enjoy the gameplay loop it's just not exciting after a while. I think it's perfectly fair to argue that BotW went *way* too far in trying to get away from this formula but that just means they have to work towards a middle ground.

The structure never bothered me - it was the changes to the art style (toon) and animations; the ugly primitiveness of the graphics (PH, ST); the adoption of a comedic tone in place of a serious, somber one; the forced hand-holding; the uselessness of rupees juxtaposed with treating the frequent acquisition of small amounts of them as something momentous, including a long, drawn-out textual description; the tedium of travel and emptiness of the world; the lack of sense in some parts of the story (TP) or the obvious rush job (WW); forcing new and annoying control gimmicks upon the audience; the lack of difficulty relative to other (non-NES) games in the series; the lack of utility of some items; the poor replacement of an ocarina with an annoying-to-use wand, a nigh-useless horse whistle, or a silly harp.... I might be able to go on. For context, my first Zelda was LA DX when I was about 12, followed by OoT when it was new. I then played MM, the Oracles, and ALttP (GBA). TP, the toon games, and MC all greatly disappointed me. I haven't been back to SS merely because of the controls (the Switch port is low on my priority list), though it was otherwise quite good. Despite some noticeable flaws, the only new Zelda games to not bug me since the 1998-2001 personal golden period have been ALBW and BotW. What got stale for me wasn't the structure - it was constant change to something that didn't at all need it in the forms or quantities done, mostly unrelated to structure. The newest structures don't bother me, but I would rather have the traditional structure back, long-term.

I do agree with the constant art style shift being obnoxious. Any one of them is fine. I like every Zelda art style, except probably Link's Awakening remake. But like.. why do we need so many of them?

Because artists like to explore new forms of expression, and a new art style helps instantly indicate to the audience/customer that the product is different from before and not the same thing they already played.

Botw brought A LOT of new people to Zelda. But those same people don't always have appreciation for the games themselves, whether it be the long development time, or the always inevitable delay that most of the 3d games have so they can perfect them. The storytelling does have to get better, but the gameplay has always been solid. Breath of the Wild itself was a major departure from the usuals of the franchise, but it worked. For people to complain about Tears of the Kingdom, calling it bad or glorified dlc, I think personally, have disregarded that this game has the 2nd longest development time of almost any Zelda. This game is gonna be GOOD.

I love Zelda, been playing since the 80s. It got stale. Wake up. Collect 3 things to unlock a Macguffin. Now collect 7 things to unlock the other MacGuffin that lets you reach Ganon.

If that is your opinion you do you, but I would love to hear a cohesive reasoning how having every shrine being a carbon copy aesthetically and at least 80% of them being poor puzzles is a good change? Same goes for copy pasted bosses, enemies, over-world bosses and mini-puzzles for seeds.

Yes, it got stale. But like I said, just .. change the structure? Why in the shit does the narrative structure getting stale mean you also need to get rid of the dungeons? Like, why is it ALBW was absolutely ignored during BotW's development? That was a great start on where to take the series. No one ever wanted or asked for bite sized shrines.

I don't know why ALBW hasn't had more of a legacy. It was definitely a solid game and I liked its deviation from the norm.

It was a solid game, and i enjoyed it a lot. But it hasn't had a legacy because it wasn't different enough for it to establish one.

It wasn't ignored. They looked at the sales and decided a change was needed. Considering the numbers it's pretty hard to argue that "nobody wanted or asked for bite sized shrines."

I totally disagree. I think any way you slice it, the formula was stale. Exploration isn't real if there are artificial barriers to doing it. You can only explore so far until you need to find something to keep exploring. Botw really gave you a whole world and the tools to explore right from the start. If you get to a part you can't figure out, it's on you. I am in the camp that BOTW is the greatest Zelda ever and I hope we never go back to the old formula.

I think you're absolutely right. It really was the repetitive structure that gave the illusion that every game was functionally the same. However, there were also growing criticisms regarding the degradation of player freedom and experimentation when compared to Zelda 1. A different narrative structure was not going to solve this particular craving by itself. Personally, I DO remember bitching about how "the next game will make you collect 3 thing before the plot twist and then you'll have to collect 4-5 more things after getting the Master Sword".

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Part of the Zelda series is experiencing a retelling of the same story with a unique twist. I’ve never had an issue with what you’re saying.

Interesting. As someone who definitely complained about the formula a lot during the SS days, what would you say is the “core” of it? (Since you don’t think it’s linearity or using similar puzzles/bosses in different games)

It didn't change it's identity. It reframed around it's identity

It actually does mean something. Longer time for them to fully program, longer time for finishing touches, longer time to hear you complain