I don’t think he was trying to gaslight people into thinking that I think it’s more so that he gave Botw more flavor. While he said there are resemblances between these 2 games they have a very different way of handling a open-world game.
@@Plumpus3545 I'll blame him for pretending he knows anything at all about Zelda 1 and gaslighting people into thinking that his empty boring poop collecting simulator with styrofoam weapons was what Zelda 1 was always striving to achieve.
@@pitshoster401 I wouldn’t call these bad games but they do lack that charm that other Zeldas have. Once again, I think Aonuma genuinely had good intentions making these games since there is a lot of passion put into them. I just think he just misunderstands how Zelda 1 was set up.
I don't even think it was Aonuma. From the moment BOTW released every reviewer was parroting the same tired line about Miyamoto's childhood. Bonus points if they follow it up with "And no game captures that spirit better than botw."
Excellently put! They are so dead set on having freedom for absolutely everything in the game they destroy progression entirely, not only for dungeons where you have to unravel a large knot, but for player progression where you don´t obtain new mechanics that open up new paths in the world, nor story progression, allowing for even the final boss to be accessed from the start, and rendering everything else completley optional and meaningless, with no character development for the main character, not any significant world changes as you, the player, interact with and help the people of the land. I've been playing twilight princess recently, and man is it refreshing.
What a coincidence I also started playing Twilight Princess again. I fully agree with your points and pray they are listening to fans of the old style as well.
@avajin Hopefully. But honestly, they might just pull an Aonuma and be like "eh, its just their nostalgia talking, MORE FREEDOM!" I also went back to the GDC conference for BOTW where they talked about the conventions of Zelda they changed, to see their exact mindset, this is what Fujibayashi had to say: _"But, I realized that to create a game in which, as I mentioned earlier, the user can think and decide on their own where to go and what they want to do, there were a few herdles to overcome: not being able to move forward with an event without having followed a set path; having walls you can´t get around due to level design; or it could be that unless you've gone through a pre-determined set of experiences, clues or difficulty may not be approriate. This won´t do. And let's not forget the fact that all the solutions to all the puzzles that you've painstakingly prepared for a dungeon are all made available on the internet. These were all conventions of Zelda."_ _"So our first step in designing the game was to re-examine these conventions and put our sights on changing the structure of the game from a passive one, where you play within the confines of a pre-prepared mechanism, to one where the user can actively engage with the game."_ They viewed not following an event without following a set path as outdated, which it can work just fine. In fact, they tried it out in TOTK with the Phantom Ganon fight at Hyrule Castle being locked behind the completion of the 4 dungeons, only for that to then unlock the ring ruins questline, which is irrelevant since you can get to Mineru from the start. It's a half-step, but proves it can work, and if they went all the way, we could get an incredible experience. Same with walls you can´t get around, which they "solved" by making every surface climbable. The problem? It makes it so that everything is accessible, no matter what, at any point, and does not allow for the world to open up progressively, not for more intricate level design and overworld puzzles. And ironically they understand that climbing removes this possibility, as this ability is to climb is removed in the shrines, otherwise the player would just climb the walls to get to the end, which is what ended up happening in the TOTK temples (and this would be solved if locked doors, which exist rarely in shrines, are there). Removing climbing altogether is also not a good solution. The solution is to have climbing be an obtainable item, like the Grip Ring from Minish Cap that allowed us to climb walls. They do that with the Paraglider where it is not something we have from the start, making it even optional in TOTK, so why not climbing too? All past Zelda game's progression and structure would shatter if they added climbing into them from the start. In the end, returning to the traditional Zelda is the only solution, they deviated too far.
@@ZeldaLore I think it's doable by limiting the player at the beginning and slowly giving them the freedom after progressing through the game. Isn't that what Zelda was all about? You start limited but by gathering items you expanded your movement. I think it could work wonders for Zelda going forward to unlock climbing after a set point.
This reminds me of Squaresoft after the release of FF7. I was thinking “that’s an interesting departure from the series, but let’s hope they don’t learn the wrong lessons from the success of this game...”😅 RIP Squaresoft
I feel like what all this boils down to is: The new games forgot that moment-to moment gameplay isn't all that matters and that it's important to have the bigger picture in mind. Only then you can have a coherent adventure that feels truly fulfilling.
My entry to Zelda was OoT, TotK is probably my fav Zeoda ever (along with OoT & MM) but I agree with most of what u said, I especially loved your idea of the island that opens up later, reminds me of Okami too. Zelda's future imo will be a mix of both old & new, they will find a way to incorporate some aspects of older Zelda. I think they were trying very hard with TotK to capitalize on what everyone praised about BotW (limitless freedom in exploration, shrines & updated dungeons) but in future Zelda games they'll try to seperate themselves a bit from BotW/TotK legacy so people won't get bored. I'm also a bit salty about the changes to the structure of the story & music, didn't like either of then in BotW/TotK, but that will also probably change in the future, who knows.
Yeah BotW and TotK had really mid OSTs compared to the rest of the series with only a few memorable tracks each. Age of Calamity, the warriors spinoff, had a BANGER OST. "The Way Home" still plays in my head sometimes.
@@KrimsonKattYT Zelda is known for its thematic heroic scores. I love totk and botw and like dude said above, started with oot in my childhood and it became more than a fav game, especially bc of the music. having 3 piano notes playing while traversing a giant world, while serene, is going to be boring eventually. and yet, totk is the only game that gave me similar feels as I had as a child playing oot for some reason. so they did something right. but they are really still searching for that perfect balance and they havent found it yet, aesthetically, the temples were aawesomee. but the constant 5 lock trope... man that messed it up. also what made dungeons great in previous 3d titles were the dungeon items.the "what am I gonna get here" excitement. example, the earth wake attack of the yiga clan was one of those " hell yeah" moments of which you wanted to discover more. new fighting techniques etc would've made for better combat AND more rewarding exploration. exploring an entire cave just to get an opal in a chest really messed me up, like cmon man you could've done better than that. but again I think theyre looking for that golden centre of old and new and they gotten a long way from botw to totk. theyre just not there yet
@@KrimsonKattYT and yeah AoC had a fckn awesome ost! for me the "prelude to the calamity" plays in my head often. think its that first variant of the main aoc theme you hear at the map selection screen.
I really think they should look at games like terraria for a merge of freedom and traditional Zelda. The whole world is open to you from the start in that game, but items exist throughout that are all but necessary for progressing. It’s such a good feeling to get the items and master their mechanics and I would love to see it in a Zelda game
Zelda Tears of the Kingdom was widely hated? Uh, no? I don't know where you're getting your information from but from what I've seen most people LOVE the game and think it's just as good if not better than BotW and a worthy sequel. The "problems" most people have with TotK don't come down to the gameplay, rather the story, the canon-breaking lore implications, and how long it took the game to release with no doubt 99% of the devtime being taken up by getting ultrahand to work, which just ended up being a superfluous optional gimmick for most of the game, and getting the game to even run properly on the underpowered Switch hardware. The game itself is really good and almost no one has an issue with how it turned out gameplay wise. The main issue is it's story still being awful and not fixing any of the problems BotW had narratively as well as the insanely long devtime that could have been shortened to 2-3 years instead of 7 if they just cut or heavily simplified Ultrahand. As for how "modern, open world Zelda" compares to old school Zelda and the whole controversy regarding that Anouma interview where he disses everything pre-botw and calls it "outdated", I have a lot to talk about in regards to that. What people didn't like about Skyward sword wasn't the puzzles, it was how railroaded, linear, and non-existant the EXPLORATION was which was the foundation of the zelda series. People don't really care how open ended and easily breakable the puzzles in BotW and TotK are compared to previous Zelda games linear puzzles. What people love about BotW and TotK is the open ended nature. The ability to explore the world at your own pace. The ability to tackle any area or challenge in any order. To go into places you're not supposed to be yet and get rewarded by your bravery and skill. And it's not like other Zelda games don't have aspects of this. The original Legend of Zelda allowed you to tackle the 7 main dungeons in any order, and later on Link Between Worlds, the game right before BotW, allowed you to tackle Lorule in any order you wanted even if there was a recommended one. The things people want back from older Zelda games is twofold: intricately crafted dungeons and the removal of the shrine system. Face it, shrines are boring and outdated. It was way more fun in previous games to get new heart containers by exploring or doing side quests. This shows with 99% of the shrines in TotK not even having a puzzle attached and either being Raryu's blessing shrines or combat trials. It's REALLY hard to come up with 120-150 physics based puzzles over two different games. BotW pulled it off, but TotK struggled heavily in this department with most shrines being pointless and no more than just treasure chests or a group of enemies since for most of the shrines the "puzzle" is actually finding the dang thing. Both BotW and TotK have the same formulaic structure for the divine beasts/temples. "Find Map -> Find 4 Things -> Fight Boss." Older Zelda dungeons as early as LTTP were a lot more complicated and multi faceted. If Zelda wants to move forward they need to take the best aspects from both the Wild games and the older titles. Shrines have been shown to not work as a system for more than one game, and it's about time we bring back heart pieces. Bring back old-school linear dungeons whole keeping the open ended structure on when and where you do them and please just add more of them than just 4 per game? This was acceptable with Minish Cap on the GBA but not on a modern HD console. Experimenting with new themes would be nice too. A reverse ruined tower hidden under the ocean? A haunted house? A mystical fey realm? An ancient space station? So many possibilities.
I really like TotK, even then I agree on some points. I believe the Zelda team will do a great job with the next game, they took some of the criticism of BotW and applied them in TotK, they couldn't do a lot of changes because they used BotW as a foundation. The next game would have to be in the middle of the Old and New formula, I still think it should take some things on how Xenoblade does their open areas, either way, it was a good video.
There is definitely something lost in Botw and Totk that made the previous Zeldas special and unique and it is not easy to pinpoint. You said that it is the Metroidvania-progression for you and I can't change your experience but I would like to make a point: It's still kind of there, it's just more organic and optional. Let me elaborate: I don't know about you, but while playing Botw and Totk I had a lot of moments where I thought: "I'm not able to do this right now, I should come back later" Be it a strong enemy, a tall cliff, Weather too hot or cold, too far away to glide etc. I couldn't do everything right away and I would argue that it can be compared to traditional Metroidvania-progression. The big difference is just that it is more organically built into the world and not always mandatory. It's organic because it's not the game holding you back, it's your own skill basically and everyone has a different experience because no one plays the game the same. You gave the example of a second Hyrule Island that could only be accessed after defeating the 4 Divine Beasts and wouldn't that be cool? Yes it would be, but have you really explored the entire world already by this point? I haven't, not even close, there was still so much to explore. I could go back to a place I've already been but instead of going left I go right this time and there's something new. There might still be half of the continent left to explore in some cases, so there you have your second Hyrule. Nothing really blocked me from going there, just my own decisions. So yeah, I would say that kind of progression is still sort of there, it just feels less "game-y". At least that's how I see it and I really like it that way, but I would of course also like the traditional Zeldas back in some way.
You know what's the real secret sauce? Not being able to climb over everything. Climbing over everything ruined Zelda games because the devs can not longer strategically place enemies or landmarks for the players to discover
What people are saying when they compare Zelda 1 to the last two games versus the other games in the series is that most of the map is explorable to you from the outset, even if you don't always know that from the beginning of your first playthrough. (And keep in mind, this is coming from someone who just can't get into BotW or TotK.) Yes, you need the raft and ladder to explore everything (also the recorder, and a candle, but that's neither here nor there). Bombs, too, and you may not realize that some enemies just drop them from the get-go. But as a design philosophy, there's far more freedom there. On a second playthrough (or if, y'know, you've read any of the copious amounts of magazine coverage out there back in the day), if you know the way through the Lost Woods, the map is open to you. You can get the White Sword before you ever enter the first dungeon because you can pick up bombs and heart containers. And the big one: if you have bombs and at least the blue candle (available a screen or two away from spawn), you can uncover the eighth dungeon before you ever even find the first and work your way to the Master Key, never having to worry about keys again for your entire playthrough. It's a more dubious kind of freedom, I suppose, but I'd compare to the more well-designed Metroid games and their intentionally-set sequence breaks. Yes, you can't do _literally_ everything. and it probably is exactly a design philosophy trying to make sure you can that makes the last two games so un-fun for me, but the ideas and design philosophies of Zelda 1 are something they got further and further away from as the series went on. Ocarina of Time is an excellent game, but unless you just want to search for heart pieces at your leisure, you won't find much freedom in how to tackle the actual world until all you have left are the Spirit and Shadow Temples. That example aside, you _need_ every item from a dungeon to even _open_ the next dungeon, or perhaps more commonly, to even have _access_ to the next dungeon's entranceway. And as the series went on from OoT, even those tiny morsels of freedom were becoming harder to come by, gating off entire chunks of the map until this or that sequence of events was witnessed. (Which...yes, that's Metroidvania design. I've always said that the only real difference in world- or progression-design between Zelda and Metroid are the games' genres; it's just that Metroid and Castlevania: SotN have a side-scrolling platformer influence, whereas Zelda-Zelda II notwithstanding-doesn't). It's that OoT approach that later games in the franchise took to, with Skyward Sword gating off practically everything until you have this weapon or that piece of equipment until the pentultimate section of the game allows you to tackle the final stretches of each zone in whichever order you choose...only the minimalist world design of SS's "overworld" map put the on-rails nature of the game under a microscope because there wasn't a lot to even _try_ to fool you with. The point is exactly that: adventure games being on rails feels like a contradiction. It's also worth pointing out that people who talk about the last two Zelda games generally make a distinciton between "Open World" design and "Open Air" design. Open Air, used to describe BotW and TotK specifically, means everything from the ground up is designed to be fully explorable and tackled at any time. Open Worlds have been around since before Zelda 1, but while I've always thought Zelda 1 took some cues from the old King's Quest games, everything from those Sierra titles to early RPGs like Ultima used explorable maps filled with secrets to discover and enemies to fight. They just also had a story progression that unlocked further parts of the maps, or in later titles, fully-explorable cities players could explore at their discretion, with sequenced story events that take happen to take place throughout. Games using that GTA structure come immediately to mind, but I mean, I can remember games doing that as far back as Police Quest 1. Either method is distinguished from games that really lock in their exploration to their story progression. See: any discussion about the difference between narrative and ludonarrative. Maybe the best example I can think of to talk about how games after Zelda 1 were more on rails than either the original or the two newest would be to talk about design philsophies of keys. Dungeons in Zelda 1 used keys just like every game that came after it until the Open Air games. But while games after Zelda 1 would tie a dungeon's keys to that dungeon alone, Zelda 1 didn't do that. It was entirely possible to find three keys in a dungeon, use two in that level and either die or leave, and use the third in a different labyrinth entirely. Keys were even purchasable as a shop item because otherwise, that could seriously screw you over and soft lock your progression if they weren't available to purchase in that way. After Zelda 1, it clearly became a design philosophy to tie keys to dungeons in order to keep the player from screwing themselves over. In fact, as games in the series moved forward in time, it seemed like the devs were constantly holding the players hands in more and more ways. OoT included not one, but two annoying-as-hell characters designed strictly to keep the player on the right track, in Navi and Kaebora Gaebora. Skyward Sword's Fi is the absolute nadir of that approach: "Stay on track, don't go astray, and I may as well just explain, re-explain, and over-explain EVERYTHING to you."
I dont think I fully agree that the legend of zelda is closer to ocarina of time than breath of the wild. Oot is mostly linear, with the player having to complete each part as a sequence except for a few of the later dungeons. In LoZ, dungeons 1,2,3 and 8 can be done from the start, and other than 9, the rest can be done in many different orders. The second quest even encourages you to back track and do dungeons out of order. Another thing is that exploring the over world is just as important as in the dungeons, with secrets hidden around and the possibility of getting lost if you dont have a map. Over all I think the game LoZ more closely is not so obvious. BoW definitely harks back to things that no game has had much of since LoZ and maybe alttp. That being said, I do agree item progression and dungeons are very much missing in botw, and I hope they can bring back both without having to fully return to the linear format.
Thats not what he was disputing though?? Yes we all know that, for reasons that I can't even comprehend, both Breath and Tears are loved by countless people. What this is about though is adressing the disingenuous bs that BotW is somehow a return to form, a "3D Zelda 1" basically.
My introduction to Zelda was Botw but I personally like other Zelda games better. At least, it’s not Zelda ll: The Adventure of Link. There’s a difference between restrictive open world games and completely open world games.
To be fair, it's hard to balance the old Zelda with the insane openness of the new zeldas. I agree the dungeons aren't as overall good. The 2 best approaches to this imo are 1: make the whole world function like a dungeon with bosses and new rune abilities Or 2: have dungeons (still optional) but unlock new runes on top of your main ones that are tuned for combat and to unlock overworld stuff And 8 disagree with locking things as that takes away too much freedom and I think in totk there is progression as you are able to kill harder enemies to get stronger weapons
It really is amazing how Aonuma was able to gaslight so many people into thinking that BotW was just like Zelda 1.
I don’t think he was trying to gaslight people into thinking that I think it’s more so that he gave Botw more flavor. While he said there are resemblances between these 2 games they have a very different way of handling a open-world game.
Keep in mind that Aonuma was brought in for Oot, so I don’t blame him.
@@Plumpus3545 I'll blame him for pretending he knows anything at all about Zelda 1 and gaslighting people into thinking that his empty boring poop collecting simulator with styrofoam weapons was what Zelda 1 was always striving to achieve.
@@pitshoster401 I wouldn’t call these bad games but they do lack that charm that other Zeldas have. Once again, I think Aonuma genuinely had good intentions making these games since there is a lot of passion put into them. I just think he just misunderstands how Zelda 1 was set up.
I don't even think it was Aonuma. From the moment BOTW released every reviewer was parroting the same tired line about Miyamoto's childhood. Bonus points if they follow it up with "And no game captures that spirit better than botw."
Excellently put! They are so dead set on having freedom for absolutely everything in the game they destroy progression entirely, not only for dungeons where you have to unravel a large knot, but for player progression where you don´t obtain new mechanics that open up new paths in the world, nor story progression, allowing for even the final boss to be accessed from the start, and rendering everything else completley optional and meaningless, with no character development for the main character, not any significant world changes as you, the player, interact with and help the people of the land.
I've been playing twilight princess recently, and man is it refreshing.
What a coincidence I also started playing Twilight Princess again. I fully agree with your points and pray they are listening to fans of the old style as well.
@avajin Hopefully. But honestly, they might just pull an Aonuma and be like "eh, its just their nostalgia talking, MORE FREEDOM!"
I also went back to the GDC conference for BOTW where they talked about the conventions of Zelda they changed, to see their exact mindset, this is what Fujibayashi had to say:
_"But, I realized that to create a game in which, as I mentioned earlier, the user can think and decide on their own where to go and what they want to do, there were a few herdles to overcome: not being able to move forward with an event without having followed a set path; having walls you can´t get around due to level design; or it could be that unless you've gone through a pre-determined set of experiences, clues or difficulty may not be approriate. This won´t do. And let's not forget the fact that all the solutions to all the puzzles that you've painstakingly prepared for a dungeon are all made available on the internet. These were all conventions of Zelda."_
_"So our first step in designing the game was to re-examine these conventions and put our sights on changing the structure of the game from a passive one, where you play within the confines of a pre-prepared mechanism, to one where the user can actively engage with the game."_
They viewed not following an event without following a set path as outdated, which it can work just fine. In fact, they tried it out in TOTK with the Phantom Ganon fight at Hyrule Castle being locked behind the completion of the 4 dungeons, only for that to then unlock the ring ruins questline, which is irrelevant since you can get to Mineru from the start. It's a half-step, but proves it can work, and if they went all the way, we could get an incredible experience.
Same with walls you can´t get around, which they "solved" by making every surface climbable. The problem? It makes it so that everything is accessible, no matter what, at any point, and does not allow for the world to open up progressively, not for more intricate level design and overworld puzzles. And ironically they understand that climbing removes this possibility, as this ability is to climb is removed in the shrines, otherwise the player would just climb the walls to get to the end, which is what ended up happening in the TOTK temples (and this would be solved if locked doors, which exist rarely in shrines, are there). Removing climbing altogether is also not a good solution. The solution is to have climbing be an obtainable item, like the Grip Ring from Minish Cap that allowed us to climb walls. They do that with the Paraglider where it is not something we have from the start, making it even optional in TOTK, so why not climbing too? All past Zelda game's progression and structure would shatter if they added climbing into them from the start.
In the end, returning to the traditional Zelda is the only solution, they deviated too far.
@@ZeldaLore I think it's doable by limiting the player at the beginning and slowly giving them the freedom after progressing through the game. Isn't that what Zelda was all about? You start limited but by gathering items you expanded your movement. I think it could work wonders for Zelda going forward to unlock climbing after a set point.
This reminds me of Squaresoft after the release of FF7. I was thinking “that’s an interesting departure from the series, but let’s hope they don’t learn the wrong lessons from the success of this game...”😅 RIP Squaresoft
I feel like what all this boils down to is: The new games forgot that moment-to moment gameplay isn't all that matters and that it's important to have the bigger picture in mind. Only then you can have a coherent adventure that feels truly fulfilling.
Banger video Sava. You put into words some things ive been feeling about eracof the wild games for a but now that i dodnt know what felt off.
Glad to hear that! Ty
Super agree
My entry to Zelda was OoT, TotK is probably my fav Zeoda ever (along with OoT & MM) but I agree with most of what u said, I especially loved your idea of the island that opens up later, reminds me of Okami too.
Zelda's future imo will be a mix of both old & new, they will find a way to incorporate some aspects of older Zelda. I think they were trying very hard with TotK to capitalize on what everyone praised about BotW (limitless freedom in exploration, shrines & updated dungeons) but in future Zelda games they'll try to seperate themselves a bit from BotW/TotK legacy so people won't get bored.
I'm also a bit salty about the changes to the structure of the story & music, didn't like either of then in BotW/TotK, but that will also probably change in the future, who knows.
Yeah BotW and TotK had really mid OSTs compared to the rest of the series with only a few memorable tracks each. Age of Calamity, the warriors spinoff, had a BANGER OST. "The Way Home" still plays in my head sometimes.
@@KrimsonKattYT true, I hope the next Zelda game gets a great OST like before 🙏🏼
@@KrimsonKattYT Zelda is known for its thematic heroic scores. I love totk and botw and like dude said above, started with oot in my childhood and it became more than a fav game, especially bc of the music. having 3 piano notes playing while traversing a giant world, while serene, is going to be boring eventually. and yet, totk is the only game that gave me similar feels as I had as a child playing oot for some reason. so they did something right. but they are really still searching for that perfect balance and they havent found it yet, aesthetically, the temples were aawesomee. but the constant 5 lock trope... man that messed it up. also what made dungeons great in previous 3d titles were the dungeon items.the "what am I gonna get here" excitement. example, the earth wake attack of the yiga clan was one of those " hell yeah" moments of which you wanted to discover more. new fighting techniques etc would've made for better combat AND more rewarding exploration. exploring an entire cave just to get an opal in a chest really messed me up, like cmon man you could've done better than that.
but again I think theyre looking for that golden centre of old and new and they gotten a long way from botw to totk. theyre just not there yet
@@KrimsonKattYT and yeah AoC had a fckn awesome ost! for me the "prelude to the calamity" plays in my head often. think its that first variant of the main aoc theme you hear at the map selection screen.
I really think they should look at games like terraria for a merge of freedom and traditional Zelda. The whole world is open to you from the start in that game, but items exist throughout that are all but necessary for progressing. It’s such a good feeling to get the items and master their mechanics and I would love to see it in a Zelda game
This would be the best solution!
Zelda Tears of the Kingdom was widely hated? Uh, no? I don't know where you're getting your information from but from what I've seen most people LOVE the game and think it's just as good if not better than BotW and a worthy sequel. The "problems" most people have with TotK don't come down to the gameplay, rather the story, the canon-breaking lore implications, and how long it took the game to release with no doubt 99% of the devtime being taken up by getting ultrahand to work, which just ended up being a superfluous optional gimmick for most of the game, and getting the game to even run properly on the underpowered Switch hardware. The game itself is really good and almost no one has an issue with how it turned out gameplay wise. The main issue is it's story still being awful and not fixing any of the problems BotW had narratively as well as the insanely long devtime that could have been shortened to 2-3 years instead of 7 if they just cut or heavily simplified Ultrahand.
As for how "modern, open world Zelda" compares to old school Zelda and the whole controversy regarding that Anouma interview where he disses everything pre-botw and calls it "outdated", I have a lot to talk about in regards to that. What people didn't like about Skyward sword wasn't the puzzles, it was how railroaded, linear, and non-existant the EXPLORATION was which was the foundation of the zelda series.
People don't really care how open ended and easily breakable the puzzles in BotW and TotK are compared to previous Zelda games linear puzzles. What people love about BotW and TotK is the open ended nature.
The ability to explore the world at your own pace. The ability to tackle any area or challenge in any order. To go into places you're not supposed to be yet and get rewarded by your bravery and skill. And it's not like other Zelda games don't have aspects of this. The original Legend of Zelda allowed you to tackle the 7 main dungeons in any order, and later on Link Between Worlds, the game right before BotW, allowed you to tackle Lorule in any order you wanted even if there was a recommended one.
The things people want back from older Zelda games is twofold: intricately crafted dungeons and the removal of the shrine system. Face it, shrines are boring and outdated. It was way more fun in previous games to get new heart containers by exploring or doing side quests. This shows with 99% of the shrines in TotK not even having a puzzle attached and either being Raryu's blessing shrines or combat trials. It's REALLY hard to come up with 120-150 physics based puzzles over two different games. BotW pulled it off, but TotK struggled heavily in this department with most shrines being pointless and no more than just treasure chests or a group of enemies since for most of the shrines the "puzzle" is actually finding the dang thing.
Both BotW and TotK have the same formulaic structure for the divine beasts/temples. "Find Map -> Find 4 Things -> Fight Boss." Older Zelda dungeons as early as LTTP were a lot more complicated and multi faceted. If Zelda wants to move forward they need to take the best aspects from both the Wild games and the older titles. Shrines have been shown to not work as a system for more than one game, and it's about time we bring back heart pieces. Bring back old-school linear dungeons whole keeping the open ended structure on when and where you do them and please just add more of them than just 4 per game? This was acceptable with Minish Cap on the GBA but not on a modern HD console. Experimenting with new themes would be nice too. A reverse ruined tower hidden under the ocean? A haunted house? A mystical fey realm? An ancient space station? So many possibilities.
Dungeons definitely are one of the biggest things they need to fix.
I really like TotK, even then I agree on some points. I believe the Zelda team will do a great job with the next game, they took some of the criticism of BotW and applied them in TotK, they couldn't do a lot of changes because they used BotW as a foundation.
The next game would have to be in the middle of the Old and New formula, I still think it should take some things on how Xenoblade does their open areas, either way, it was a good video.
Thank you!
There is definitely something lost in Botw and Totk that made the previous Zeldas special and unique and it is not easy to pinpoint. You said that it is the Metroidvania-progression for you and I can't change your experience but I would like to make a point: It's still kind of there, it's just more organic and optional. Let me elaborate:
I don't know about you, but while playing Botw and Totk I had a lot of moments where I thought: "I'm not able to do this right now, I should come back later" Be it a strong enemy, a tall cliff, Weather too hot or cold, too far away to glide etc. I couldn't do everything right away and I would argue that it can be compared to traditional Metroidvania-progression. The big difference is just that it is more organically built into the world and not always mandatory. It's organic because it's not the game holding you back, it's your own skill basically and everyone has a different experience because no one plays the game the same.
You gave the example of a second Hyrule Island that could only be accessed after defeating the 4 Divine Beasts and wouldn't that be cool? Yes it would be, but have you really explored the entire world already by this point? I haven't, not even close, there was still so much to explore. I could go back to a place I've already been but instead of going left I go right this time and there's something new. There might still be half of the continent left to explore in some cases, so there you have your second Hyrule. Nothing really blocked me from going there, just my own decisions.
So yeah, I would say that kind of progression is still sort of there, it just feels less "game-y".
At least that's how I see it and I really like it that way, but I would of course also like the traditional Zeldas back in some way.
You know what's the real secret sauce? Not being able to climb over everything. Climbing over everything ruined Zelda games because the devs can not longer strategically place enemies or landmarks for the players to discover
your right.
Super great points!!!!!
Both are insane
What people are saying when they compare Zelda 1 to the last two games versus the other games in the series is that most of the map is explorable to you from the outset, even if you don't always know that from the beginning of your first playthrough. (And keep in mind, this is coming from someone who just can't get into BotW or TotK.) Yes, you need the raft and ladder to explore everything (also the recorder, and a candle, but that's neither here nor there). Bombs, too, and you may not realize that some enemies just drop them from the get-go. But as a design philosophy, there's far more freedom there.
On a second playthrough (or if, y'know, you've read any of the copious amounts of magazine coverage out there back in the day), if you know the way through the Lost Woods, the map is open to you. You can get the White Sword before you ever enter the first dungeon because you can pick up bombs and heart containers. And the big one: if you have bombs and at least the blue candle (available a screen or two away from spawn), you can uncover the eighth dungeon before you ever even find the first and work your way to the Master Key, never having to worry about keys again for your entire playthrough.
It's a more dubious kind of freedom, I suppose, but I'd compare to the more well-designed Metroid games and their intentionally-set sequence breaks. Yes, you can't do _literally_ everything. and it probably is exactly a design philosophy trying to make sure you can that makes the last two games so un-fun for me, but the ideas and design philosophies of Zelda 1 are something they got further and further away from as the series went on. Ocarina of Time is an excellent game, but unless you just want to search for heart pieces at your leisure, you won't find much freedom in how to tackle the actual world until all you have left are the Spirit and Shadow Temples. That example aside, you _need_ every item from a dungeon to even _open_ the next dungeon, or perhaps more commonly, to even have _access_ to the next dungeon's entranceway.
And as the series went on from OoT, even those tiny morsels of freedom were becoming harder to come by, gating off entire chunks of the map until this or that sequence of events was witnessed. (Which...yes, that's Metroidvania design. I've always said that the only real difference in world- or progression-design between Zelda and Metroid are the games' genres; it's just that Metroid and Castlevania: SotN have a side-scrolling platformer influence, whereas Zelda-Zelda II notwithstanding-doesn't). It's that OoT approach that later games in the franchise took to, with Skyward Sword gating off practically everything until you have this weapon or that piece of equipment until the pentultimate section of the game allows you to tackle the final stretches of each zone in whichever order you choose...only the minimalist world design of SS's "overworld" map put the on-rails nature of the game under a microscope because there wasn't a lot to even _try_ to fool you with. The point is exactly that: adventure games being on rails feels like a contradiction.
It's also worth pointing out that people who talk about the last two Zelda games generally make a distinciton between "Open World" design and "Open Air" design. Open Air, used to describe BotW and TotK specifically, means everything from the ground up is designed to be fully explorable and tackled at any time. Open Worlds have been around since before Zelda 1, but while I've always thought Zelda 1 took some cues from the old King's Quest games, everything from those Sierra titles to early RPGs like Ultima used explorable maps filled with secrets to discover and enemies to fight. They just also had a story progression that unlocked further parts of the maps, or in later titles, fully-explorable cities players could explore at their discretion, with sequenced story events that take happen to take place throughout. Games using that GTA structure come immediately to mind, but I mean, I can remember games doing that as far back as Police Quest 1. Either method is distinguished from games that really lock in their exploration to their story progression. See: any discussion about the difference between narrative and ludonarrative.
Maybe the best example I can think of to talk about how games after Zelda 1 were more on rails than either the original or the two newest would be to talk about design philsophies of keys. Dungeons in Zelda 1 used keys just like every game that came after it until the Open Air games. But while games after Zelda 1 would tie a dungeon's keys to that dungeon alone, Zelda 1 didn't do that. It was entirely possible to find three keys in a dungeon, use two in that level and either die or leave, and use the third in a different labyrinth entirely. Keys were even purchasable as a shop item because otherwise, that could seriously screw you over and soft lock your progression if they weren't available to purchase in that way. After Zelda 1, it clearly became a design philosophy to tie keys to dungeons in order to keep the player from screwing themselves over. In fact, as games in the series moved forward in time, it seemed like the devs were constantly holding the players hands in more and more ways. OoT included not one, but two annoying-as-hell characters designed strictly to keep the player on the right track, in Navi and Kaebora Gaebora. Skyward Sword's Fi is the absolute nadir of that approach: "Stay on track, don't go astray, and I may as well just explain, re-explain, and over-explain EVERYTHING to you."
I dont think I fully agree that the legend of zelda is closer to ocarina of time than breath of the wild. Oot is mostly linear, with the player having to complete each part as a sequence except for a few of the later dungeons. In LoZ, dungeons 1,2,3 and 8 can be done from the start, and other than 9, the rest can be done in many different orders. The second quest even encourages you to back track and do dungeons out of order.
Another thing is that exploring the over world is just as important as in the dungeons, with secrets hidden around and the possibility of getting lost if you dont have a map.
Over all I think the game LoZ more closely is not so obvious. BoW definitely harks back to things that no game has had much of since LoZ and maybe alttp. That being said, I do agree item progression and dungeons are very much missing in botw, and I hope they can bring back both without having to fully return to the linear format.
What are you talking about? Ppl LOVE THESE GAMES. I personally dont but the general ppl like it
Thats not what he was disputing though?? Yes we all know that, for reasons that I can't even comprehend, both Breath and Tears are loved by countless people. What this is about though is adressing the disingenuous bs that BotW is somehow a return to form, a "3D Zelda 1" basically.
My introduction to Zelda was Botw but I personally like other Zelda games better. At least, it’s not Zelda ll: The Adventure of Link. There’s a difference between restrictive open world games and completely open world games.
To be fair, it's hard to balance the old Zelda with the insane openness of the new zeldas. I agree the dungeons aren't as overall good. The 2 best approaches to this imo are
1: make the whole world function like a dungeon with bosses and new rune abilities
Or 2: have dungeons (still optional) but unlock new runes on top of your main ones that are tuned for combat and to unlock overworld stuff
And 8 disagree with locking things as that takes away too much freedom and I think in totk there is progression as you are able to kill harder enemies to get stronger weapons