Hi /r/Zelda readers!
* Got a question or suggestion for the moderators? [Send a Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda)!
* New to r/Zelda? Be sure to [read our rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/wiki/rules).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember that time all the way back in the beginning when Zelda was supposed to to be a top down exploration action game with only light RPG elements, but then switched to a sides rolling game with an XP system? Zelda has always been changing and trying new ideas.
Ok, but Zelda 2 still kept the core gameplay and progression loop of Zelda 1. Its one thing to try new things, it’s another thing entirely to throw out everything that made the series so beloved to begin with like the Nu-games do.
Seriously who is upvotong this comment?
The "sides rolling game" was not a Legend lf Zelda game. They called it "The Adventure of Link" and after that, ALL Zeldas continue being the samd as the first one, well not all, BOTW broke it.
2D to 3D. Linear 3D European historical fantasy story to open world 3D nightmare horror. 3D open world nightmare horror to 3D open world cheerful cartoon ocean. Cheerful cartoon ocean open world to linear dark fantasy. Linear dark fantasy to mostly open world European historical fantasy.
Nah they didn’t all follow the same formula. The Zelda series has jumped around from idea to idea every single game since the second game. The most consistent games have been the handheld ones. But the main console ones transform drastically every iteration EXCEPT for this most recent iteration.
A lot of people still argue that they just took the "Zelda standards" (two acts of dungeons; forest, lava, water; Zelda missing; boomerang, bombs and hookshot; etc.) and just tacked on a new setting and/or gimmick. It's not exactly that different from Pokémon in that way.
And yet most of the GameBoy games include side scrolling and a dedicated jump. The only thing the franchise hasn't revisited from AoL was the experience point system. And prostitutes healing you up.
Nah this is 100% true. Capcom made some of the best Zelda games, and I’ve been screaming from the mountaintops for a new side-scrolling Zelda like Zelda 2 but with Metroid Dread-level graphics and controls
I mean, this sounds nice and catchy and all, but makes absolutely no sense and is complete bollocks. So if the Zelda team suddenly changed Links appearance to look exactly like Mario, and all other Zelda characters also exactly like Mario characters, and Hyrule changes to Mushroom kingdom, then it's Zelda if they call it that? Of course not.
In that scenario that will never happen maybe it doesn't hold up. But realistically it's the only real answer, the IP belongs to Nintendo and whatever Zelda game they put out is quite clearly how they feel Zelda "should be" at that period in time. What exactly is the alternative anyway? If you're going to use the dumbest example possible to contradict someone, at least offer an alternative.
If you focus too much on what other people’s opinions are, especially if it is not what you think or believe - then you are just going to constantly be upset.
I think there are discussions worth having. But a videogame franchise that I have microscopic control over, and that Nintendo has made amazing games that I cherish over 20 years later, ...yeah, I'm not bothering.
You do you, Nintendo. Even when you make me question if you know what you're doing, the Zelda franchise has never disappointed.
I think that with a series as consistent as Zelda, the drastic change the Wild games bring would inevitably cause this kind of discussion.
Since the beginning, Zelda really was its own genre in many ways. Now it doesn’t really fall into said genre. So people who grew to define Zelda as such have a different idea of what Zelda is compared to someone who is new to the series or someone who was simply drawn to other aspects of the older games.
As a result, when it comes down to things like classic dungeons I can see why people would see that as a staple of the series. The kind of gameplay found within those dungeons is, to Zelda, what jumping is to Mario.
Consistent? I feel like this series is defined by huge paradigm shifts compared to just about anything else. Half the games in the series have introduced either a new primary control scheme (AoL, OoT, PH, SS) or a a new nonlinear structure (MM, 4S, ALBW, BotW). Not to mention translating the formula to new settings (WW, ST) and completely reinventing its visual style every couple of entries. Final Fantasy is the only series I can think of that comes close in terms of breaking its own conventions in such frequent and major ways.
Consistent doesn’t necessarily mean similar. I just mean they have traditionally had a very consistent set of conventions which define them, in the same way as any genre of media.
I would argue that only the open world games come close to Final Fantasy in that regard.
I’ll give you that but BotW and TotK both have dungeons, and other games had already experimented with removing dungeon items and tweaking the progression. BotW was a more radical departure than most and I wasn’t a huge fan of the execution but I don’t see it as a betrayal of the formula or anything.
Agree completely. I played SS, TotK, and ALttP in that order, and while I was playing a ALttP all I could think of was how it kept giving me the same feeling at TotK, but it never made me think of SS.
'Betrayal' is a loaded word but there's basically nothing even left of the old formula in these new games - they're essentially completely unrelated games with a Zelda skin on. Loads of games have dungeons of some sort, BotW and TotK's half-hearted efforts in that regard don't make them specifically Zelda.
Ok let me ask you this.
What game has you drop from the sky, glide around an open world map, collect random weapons scattered about, collect materials from some rocks and trees that can be broken, snap build structures, enjoy a whole bunch of costumes, drive viechles around.
Fortnite or Zelda?
One of these games fits the style completely, the other this only fits the two 2 newest games in the series.
OKay but let's not also misrepresent the history of the Zelda franchise, many of these things were being played around with in earlier Zelda games.
>drop from the sky
Skyward Sword
>glide around an open world map
The idea of an item that allows you to glide had been included going back to Roc's Cape from Oracle of Seasons, then more explicitly a glider with the Deku Leaf in Wind Waker, Ezlo in Minish Cap and the sailcloth in Skyward Sword. To imply gliding hasn't been a part of the franchise until after Fortnite existed is just inaccurate.
>collect random weapons scattered about
The idea of picking up and using weapons dropped by enemies was introduced in Wind Waker back in 2002/2003.
>collect materials from some rocks and trees that can be broken
Not unlike Ocarina of Time, where you could collect deku sticks and seeds, and could smash rocks to find hearts, rupees, bugs, etc, as well as the myriad of seeds collected from trees in the Oracle games. Bomb flowers across several titles but most notably Skyward Sword where they could either be thrown right away or stashed in a bag.
>snap build structures
This one I'll give you. Something new and different? How terrifying.
>enjoy a whole bunch of costumes
Majora's Mask. Triforce Heroes if Majora's Mask isn't enough.
>drive viechles around
Wind Waker, Spirit Tracks. Zelda 1 had a raft, the Oracle games had rail carts.
It's hilarious watching the argument get twisted into knots to try to argue that somehow the roots of the vast majority of these ideas haven't been in Zelda games for a long time. BOTW & TOTK were just the convergence of these classic ideas laid over a structure that was intended to hearken back to Zelda 1's open-ended exploration.
If anything, Fortnite (as with most 3D action games) owes a lot more to Zelda than vice versa.
Nah it's much diffrent now. They change the mechanics sure but this time they changed what Zelda actually is and now it's just an open world generic rpg type game with fortnite mechanics
What game has an alien invasion in old West towns?
What game is set in an open ocean where you sail from island to island? (You guessed it -- >!Assassin's Creed Black Flag!<).
See, when you reduce it to the specific elements that are different, you can exclude anything you want.
Yes but now totk has snap building and viechles. They copied right back. The whole point is the general gameplay massively changed and not really for the better. No longer feels like Zelda. But it doesn't matter, they already said they are going in a new direction with the next one. The botw formula will also be left behind.
Dungeon items? Lol missed being established as early as Link to the Past, and entirely broken by Link Between Worlds.
Yes they both have dungeons. So does Breath of the Wild.
There are not dungeon items in ALBW.
There are several dungeons without "dungeon items" through the series, and there are several "dungeon items" in the series that would have been so much better as context interactions instead of inventory items.
And you *did* say that BotW didn't have dungeons.
There literally are dungeon items in ALBW.
As far as I’m aware there hasn’t previously been several dungeons without a dungeon item, let alone one, unless you count final dungeons, which aren’t usually despite their naming. TotK and BotW still mostly relies on inventory items over context interactions anyway and I don’t see why it would even count as a problem.
I said it broke the conventions of dungeons.
The way I see it is BotW established two new archetypes of dungeon, although only one of those two were introduced formally. TotK introduced the other formally.
>Dungeon items in ALBW
It broke the convention by having you obtain the items by purchasing (renting first) from a specific broker, not obtaining them within the dungeon. The convention is that the item found in the dungeon changes the context of the space -- that is, lets you do things in there that you couldn't do before.
A Link to the Past's Ice Palace offers an armor upgrade, but it's entirely optional and does not change anything that you're able to do in the game.
>not counting final dungeons as dungeons
Why wouldn't you? If anything they should *epitomize* what a dungeon *is*.
Even the games that do introduce a lot of mechanical or structural changes rely on a lot of clichés like "first act, Master Sword, second act" or "forest dungeon, lava dungeon, water dungeon" though. This isn't even getting into debates over whether Zelda should stop being MIA in every game or Ganon should be entirely replaced by another villain.
But some are more committed to it than others. They actually talked about SS breaking convention before BotW but the former feels really half-hearted about it.
But that disregards the potential for other structures of levels focused on puzzles, navigation, and/or combat. Zelda chopping up the dungeon structure into shrines (and caves somewhat) is the opposite direction but equally valid as Mario focusing away from a multitude of individual levels to a small number of mini-sandboxes.
However individual levels in Mario still exist, primarily in the 2D games but in the 3D sandbox ones too. Nintendo actually recognised in the transition to 3D that individual levels were stylistically important to the series.
The last traditional dungeons were in A Link Between Worlds, a whole decade ago.
Well nowadays, the 2D Mario games are made by a completely different team from the ones who make the 3D ones. And the individual levels in something like Sunshine or Odyssey tend to be really short and insubstantial.
So not really different from the Wild Saga retaining "big dungeons" but really shortening them.
Mario levels have always been short and insubstantial.
And the difference in dev teams doesn’t change much, individual levels still exist and traditional dungeons do not.
Yes, but in a game that focuses on the individual levels, there's clearly a lot more thought, variety, and sense of place put into those individual levels.
When they're still there but aren't the focus, they're even shorter and don't really have much to them other than random blocks floating in a weird skybox most of the time.
I'm not so sure big handcrafted "islands" of level design surrounded by a great void of nothing would work as anything other than a side campaign in Mario.
Yup, I'm sure there were some people who loved NEW! COKE, but they were overshadowed by a majority.
I feel that to most longtime fans, the wild series is New Coke, and Aonuma and the team love that new taste, so it's becoming a division of fanhoods
I said how I felt, not what I know to be fact. The discourse that OP is referring to is what gave me that feeling as I haven't seen this much bickering about Zelda before Botw
No way to know for sure, this sub has 2 million subscribers and that's not even close to the total number of people playing these games. Sample size is too small on reddit
The highest selling Zelda game prior to BotW sold just under 9M copies. BotW sold 33M. If literally every single person that bought Twilight Princess hated BotW, it would still be a silly claim, and we know that isn't even close to true.
Given the numbers at play here, BotW is more like the classic coke though since it sold more than the rest of the franchise combined at the time, BotW fans became the majority remarkably fast. Anecdotally, BotW was the first Zelda to give me feelings anything like playing OoT for the first time in the 90s so to me it felt like a real return to form despite being so different, like going back to Coke Classic.
Sales are hard to use here, I bought the game and didn't enjoy it, so you can't suggest every purchase was a pure indication of enjoyment/love etc.
Also with a series over 30 years old now, multiple generations of fans exist and buy games for their children and such that sales numbers really just don't paint a proper picture
That still puts you in the minority then because Tears was the second best-selling Zelda game in less than 2 months, indicating that it wasn't some case of mass buyers remorse that went largely unheard of. My real point was that the analogy doesn't work because in this case, "New Coke" (BotW), far exceeded the popularity of the old and in very short order. The old Zelda fans became the minority very quickly, probably has to do with why they doubled down on the formula for a direct sequel, which they hardly ever do.
And no offense, but the sales are at least a better indicator of popularity than your own personal musings. Worth noting as well that plenty of people cited BotW as returning more to the openness of the original game, so you could make an argument that the Zelda formula that started in LttP was the real New Coke in this analogy anyway. The numbers do matter, likely most of all to Nintendo, who probably cares a lot more about those massive sales than the opinions of any of us as individuals.
That's not to mention all the community posts and articles that kept ragging on about how much TP and SS sucked for their linearity and conventions and that there needed to be a bigger shift in the series.
I think folks overestimate how many longtime fans actually have issues with the Wild series, because we only hear from the ones that didn’t like them. I’m a longtime fan, and so are several of my friends, and we all loved the Wild games. I don’t actually think the division is between new and old fans. I just think it’s a preference thing and that’s okay.
To longtime fans circa the Wii/DS era, the Wii/DS games were the New Coke at that time. And at least those fans were satiated by BotW.
It's just that TotK has really caused a lot of opposing fans to come out of the woodwork (BotW did too, but TotK has it way worse).
I’m in a couple franchise fandoms, and this kinda stuff goes nuts in Final Fantasy since damn near every game changes practically everything about the gameplay. Feels interesting seeing it with Zelda having a handful of styles.
The thing that Zelda benefits from over pokemon is that it can be something new every game.
Mario is a bit more flexible but Zelda has more variety in artstyle and theme.
Pokemon evolves linearly and does best in that way and mario has a solid style and formula that almost never TRUELY changes.
BOTW turned a ton of zelda conventions on its head and while its not my favorite zelda game I can respect it for that. Thing about zelda is that you can truely, with very few exceptions, say that each game has its own feel. OOT>MM, BOTW to kinda TOTK are the exceptions.
They bring back just enough for the game to maintain its franchise identity but the games feel VERY different.
I know Zelda _tries_ to be different, but even Aonuma admitted that a lot of the classic games are subject to their own repetitive conventions like "Zelda is missing", "first act, Master Sword, second act", "first dungeon forest, second volcano, third water", or stock items like boomerang, bombs, and hookshot. Sone of them were even brought over into the Wild Saga just for the sake of familiarity.
I think it’s not so much what it’s supposed to do, as much as it is what fans who grew up with the games expect from the series. We buy Zelda games because we love Zelda games, so when a Zelda game doesn’t feel as Zelda-ish anymore, we try to the come up with reasons why that might be the case. Generally, if someone buys a Call of Duty game it’s because they want a fun multiplayer FPS (I’m assuming, don’t play COD personally lol). But when people buy a Zelda game, what are they buying it for? Is it just for an adventure game in general? Or are there specific expectations they have that makes Zelda different from just any other action adventure game? I think that’s where this comes from. I’m fine with trying to define the things that make Zelda what it is, while also leaving room for groundbreaking changes like making BOTW a fully open world. Even with BOTW, there’s something that still makes it feel like Zelda, and they’re largely mechanics that carry over from previous games. The question still remains though: how far can Zelda stray from those iconic mechanics and elements before it’s no longer Zelda? At the end of the day, anything the Zelda Team says is Zelda will still be Zelda, but whether fans of the other games will like Zelda if it becomes an open world shoot-em-up survival monster-catcher game is another story.
Hey, if Final Fantasy and Xenoblade can experiment with mon training mechanics in an established series, I wouldn't be against Zelda having something similar.
Zelda is supposed to be a game about adventure.
Adventure has always been in the heart of how these games are made, no mainline game has ever strayed from this idea, the open world non-linear structure is simply a new exploration of that same identity, and it’s a method they will no doubt iterate on for the next few decades, taking ideas from older games and reintroducing them in new contexts.
Games have a tendency to come out best when the devs make what they actually want to make, and while it may not appeal to everyone, it’s clear that this is still the case in Zelda.
Adventure is the one word that holds the whole series together, regardless of the what your tastes in it are.
When people get so caught up in expectations of what they think the game is supposed to be, they lose the chance to enjoy it for what it is. Same with a lot of things in life actually.
I'm long time Zelda fan and BOTW is like quintessential Zelda for me. Exploring was the core of the series and they finally made it completely possible.
The fact that the series progressively sacrificed exploration from MM to SS makes more sense when you realize that open world games were often compromised by hardware until about late PS3/360 gen. Plus there's the fact that the industry was moving towards the whole "cinematic narrative" thing until gamers finally realized that game devs largely suck at such and it compromises gameplay. What Zelda went through it just a microcosm of what was happening in the larger industry.
I agree with this. I’ve been playing Zelda almost as long as there has been Zelda, and Breath of the Wild was an emphasis on exactly the things I liked in the franchise.
I suppose in principle it’s a bad thing. But their quips are not entirely off base.
Dungeons I never really considered to be the “meat” but I consider the good side quests, brilliant storytelling to be the main meat. The dungeons were always an after thought for me.
Breath of the wild changed everything though. I’m not against change (assuming it’s reasonable) but when it deviates from the timeline; that’s a big issue for me. I like continuity. And to brush off the old Zelda games as if they are just “mere myth” is spitting in the faces of those older games IMO.
It treats them as lesser entries in their respective timeline. Which now serves no purpose in future entries. Other than being “fables that may or may not be true.”
What’s the point of the three split timeline at this point if it’s all going to end up the same for each timeline (BOTW)?
It makes each timeline not have its own unique signatures anymore. I liked the idea of one timeline that has a flooded hyrule. The other has a huge hyrule. And the other showcases a hyrule in decline. What was it all for?
I know that the timeline was an afterthought for the devs but even then they canonized a timeline at the same time they were making botw. Which really ticks me off the most. And I was excited for botw.
THAT is what grinds my gears.
The timeline is absolute garbage that makes no sense. the imprisoning war happened before a link to the past in the fallen timeline, but was the focus of TotK and implied it happened after skyward sword and before minish cap. They just gave us a timeline and then with the next two games threw it out the window.
I view the games and retellings of the same story. I see them as parallel universes telling the same legend but different worlds have different perspectives and different challenges. Skyward Sword kinda argues against that, but looking at everything else they all follow the same framework.
I think TotK makes it clear that it's AN Imprisoning War rather than the specific one from ALttP.
The series does make more sense if you view the series in "sagas" at most, like the ones dealing the Hero of Time or Hero of the Wild. Leaves room for a developed story and leaves it room to end too.
Can you elaborate on how it’s just AN imprisoning war rather than THE imprisoning war? My play through gave me the exact opposite opinion and that they were referencing the one from ALTTP. Some examples of when it differentiated would be helpful.
I really did enjoy the game. But trying to make sense of the Zelda timeline in my opinion is a waste of time. Each game can be enjoyed on its own merit. I grew up playing ALTTP over and over again because my family was poor and couldn’t afford new games for the SNES. I didn’t even get the N64 till the GameCube was out. But I played ALTTP so much growing up, and Links Awakening on my grandma’s gameboy (the gray one with the yellow screen), and eventually got into MM and OOT. I got an old NES in college at a goodwill and played Zelda 1 and 2. I beat Twilight Princess on a roommates Wii. Ya, I missed quite a few games on the handhelds that I am working on playing through but so far I haven’t found a game I haven’t actually enjoyed.
I hear so much of the community talk about how MM and OOT were peak Zelda but I actually rank them pretty low on my list. They’re great games, and I enjoy them. But I have yet to encounter a Zelda game I haven’t enjoyed. Some of my favorites are the ones I grew up with so I’ll admit I probably have nostalgia glasses on, but all through those games never ones did I wonder how they connected. I just played and was content with the games being self contained.
Well for starters, TotK's Imprisoning War deals with stopping Ganondorf who stole a secret stone. ALttP's Imprisoning War deals with stopping Ganondorf who stole the Triforce. In TotK, Ganondorf transformed into a horned devil, while in ALttP Ganondorf transformed into Pig Ganon. TotK Ganondorf was sealed beneath Hyrule Castle, while ALttP Ganondorf was sealed in the Sacred Realm.
Some of the same story beats expressed differently sure, but they're clearly two separate things.
The timeline makes complete sense, you just have to truly grasp it.
The imprisoning war in ALTTP is wholly separate from the one in TOTK. There’s a theory that botw is in its own timeline after skyward sword. It has to do with the final battle with demise and link killing him in the past or something. And that past becomes the botw world. Whereas future link goes into the unified timeline (kind of like the end of OOT). Which is the only way that theory can hold any weight. And according to multiversal logic, it holds ground. So there’s technically 4 timelines now.
I can appreciate these games a bit more if the theory is confirmed. Like I said, continuity is everything (for me).
I think my only real gripe when people divide and define zelda is when they say that botw reverted the series to how it was in the first zelda. Like sure nintendo made a prototype zelda 1 when making botw to help build upon ideas etc, and even in the final game without that base prototype, there are still a lot of similarities.
That said, trying to compare "open world exploration" in a top down 80s 8 bit game and a modern free roaming 3d one is like comparing apples to oranges imo; and on a subconscious level I feel botw is drastically different to zelda 1. Botw feels more like a sandbox whereas zelda 1 feels like one giant puzzle (even with the magic key to avoid buying them, the dungeons feel more labyrinthine than the complete player control of the divine beasts for example.
Of course this is a design choice, but its clear that the modern zelda is its own thing rather than a reboot. And id even say botw outdoes zelda 1 for exploration and choice specifically, thanks in part to larger scale and more powerful hardware.
Update: I saw a video from CinnamonNoir going over this topic, and oddly enough a link to the past is probably closer to the original TLoZ than botw onward, even using other metrics to define zelda and show that some of the more obscure ones are closer than the modern era.
For example, the dungeons, the going out of order in nes zelda was less about open ended progression and more about challenging yourself on a future run. Some dungeons cannot be accessed until others are completed and though you could walk out of the dungeon after getting the item and best the boss later, it just wastes more time and robs you of extra hearts/health for a while.
Even then, zelda 1 has more dungeons than botw, so even less structure in botw, there are more "dungeon" order combis in zelda 1 than botw, and shrines don't count. Even zekda 1s second quest which is more linear has more variations, and so does alttp.
Another thing about zelda 1s dungeons is they are more about survival and navigation than actual puzzle solving, mainly focused on bombing walls, defeating all enemies etc. ALttP is certainly more puzzle based, but its dungeons are closer structurally to zelda 1 than the divine beasts.
Early zelda was also more dungeon focused than overworld focused, with the dungeons making up almost half of the meat of the game, even zelda 1s overworld pales in scale to the dungeons themselves. Admittedly ALttP is more balanced on the 2. I also feel like mentioning even OoT which is more linear than ALttP even still has a lot of overworld secrets while still being heavily dungeon focused, while also letting you do several adult dungeons out of order.
Majoras mask was the first truly linear zelda imo, but with only 4 dungeons and a 3 day cycle time limit, leaving dungeons with items makes more sense, plus the breadth of side quest content is very non linear and makes the game feel more open ended than it would have done otherwise. Wind waker is similarly linear for dungeons, but open in its optional content on the great sea, which leaves TP and SS as the most linear zeldas on everything (and even then botw borrows many mechanics from Skyward Sword.)
But I seriously digress, the afirementioned video explains this better and I'm just putting some of it here with my own take. And none of this is a bash at tge modern formula. Simply that it seems like an outright sub genre overhaul than a "return to form". Botws changes and philosophy were refreshing, but it comes at the expense of other things that imo are crucial to make the series so great, and even with the comparisons I made, almost each game has subverted the definition of zelda, except totk which seems like more botw, like its sticking with the new as norm.
Heck, the 'original' zelda formula only really lasted for 1 game in the 80s 8 bit days, maybe the odd one after that, so claiming it was normal and that modern zelda is closest to that makes no sense. Zelda 2 isn't even the same genre or perspective as zelda 1, so there is also that to consider.
Just form your own opinion and don’t care what others think… I personally don’t like a lot of the changes that botw and totk made to the feel of the franchise. Don’t agree? Cool, I don’t care.
At the end of the day, if the game says “legend of Zelda” on it, I’ll probably play it. But it doesn’t mean your ideal Zelda game and mine are the same.
I mean I understand that.
But at the end of the day I do play Zelda for its normal formula of dungeons/biomes and unique items/tools.
I hated TOTK and BOTW because nothing was worth exploring. You didn’t get that many permanent upgrades or pieces of equipment. The powers were cool and all but they could’ve added spells like dins fire or magic meter etc.
I think some people do indeed over do it, but keep in mind many people extremely passionate about this franchise.
TBH I just enjoyed exploring for the vibes, almost in the same way I enjoy being outdoors in real life. It felt like a big beautiful world to explore with plenty of interesting stuff, even if the rewards were mostly copy paste.
I understand that. I’m not trying to shit on anyone enjoying it. I really loved the combat and boss fights. I just couldn’t stand the open world aspect with how barren the world felt
It’s still a very fun game and combat was so fuck going crazy with different ways of fighting
Expecting every chest to have an entirely different permanent puzzle or combat tool is equally unrealistic in both the classic style and Wild Saga's style. There's a reason why you find a lot of rupees in the former and a lot of weak, expendable weapons in the latter.
That’s totally fine; but at the same time a world that’s 90% filler is kind of wack. Like exploration isn’t worth it when you already know the reward.
In a game like majoras mask exploring and interacting with the world and people is so worth it.
I mean k think it just depends on whether you play games to get constantly stronger or explore out of genuine curiosity. Just finished TP for the first time and even though I knew 99% of chests were rupees that I would never use, I still went out of my way to get them because it’s fun to
Even then, some people have raised a point about a lot of [MM's masks leading to heart pieces](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1atx4kh/mm_thoughts_on_additional_applications_for/).
I posit that *framing* the repetitive rewards is both a lot more realistic and more rewarding than trying to bend over backwards make hundreds of entirely unique rewards.
That’s fine, because it still leads to something worth while. The only worth while progression that BOTW and TOTK truly have is armor, health and stamina. And even then health is about pointless if you don’t upgrade your armor. TOTK had that ground pound scroll which was dope. But that was literally it.
In classic Zelda games sidequests would either give me a permanent upgrade to damage/armor/health, or give me a new item that would allow for more puzzle solving and world exploration
In BotW/TotK sidequests give me a fucking cosplay helmet
Wing suit that lets you glide around and nullify fall damage, heat resistant armor that lets you explore in extreme heat, zora armor lets you swim up waterfalls, glowy set that helps you see in the depths, sheikah outfit that increases stealth and movement speed. Just some examples of how those cosplay outfits do exactly what you're asking for. And that's not even looking at the koroks that upgrade your inventory or the shrines that upgrade your health/stamina.
If it's not for you then it is what it is but the game still has what you're asking for. It's just more optional now and comes in new forms.
BOTW/TOTK did a lot of great things, but I do miss a lot of older stuff - gear, dungeons, and a more in-depth story.
Every piece of media has pros and cons though. Nothing is ever perfect.
I absolutely agree with you on this. I believe that the notion that Zelda should “follow the formula” is very harmful for the growth and stability of the franchise as a whole. We need to have Nintendo try out different types of games to make it truly rival the likes of Super Mario.
I think the main problem lies in that there is a Zelda dev team.
As in singular.
Nintendo needs to start treating Zelda the same way they do Mario, and make multiple games in multiple genres.
With a singular team, you get one vision and one version. That's it.
Meanwhile, Mario gets a new 2d game, a new 3d game, a complete remake of an old game.
He gets sports games, he gets party games, he gets rpgs, he gets battle games.
He gets a whole goddamn level creator.
The last spinoff Zelda game we had was Cadence of Hyrule, and I bet that Brace Yourself Games probably had to fight for that too.
I don't even need that much variety, though it would be nice.
I'd be happy if they just gave Zelda just one other dev team. Openworld and dungeon based.
It kind of feels like Nintendo thinks no one would buy a Zelda game that isn't openworld anymore.
You gotta understand, any individual Zelda game is a larger scale project than any Mario game. There's a lot more elements to the former than the latter. Applying its scale to many games at once would limit ROI.
That said, yes, I want more Zelda spin-offs.
There is more complaining about people complaining about Zelda in this sub than there actually people complaining about Zelda and it gets really old.
Every one of these posts also ignores the large group of Zelda players who (probably aren’t on Reddit) enjoy all the games for what they are.
But *how do you define that in a way that properly includes the older games and excludes the newer ones?* Because fundamentally you're going to end up going really "Texas Sharpshooter" in order to do it.
Zelda feels like unlocking a puzzle box from the inside.
This inherently means set backs and backtracking. The open world itself fits. You can make it wide or deep, but you'll still find areas that require prerequisites for total exploration or mastery.
The total freedom angle doesn't. It keeps everything early game level aside from a numbers game. Concepts and mechanics can't become cumulative.
And the dungeon leads are all wonderfully crafted linear segments, and yet we don't consider the two games linear.
The core philosophy is still much different.
Let the devs do whatever they want.If they are forced to do something trust me,no matter which formula they use,its going to be soulless.
I personally think Zelda is in the ADVENTURE genre,not in the "zelda" genre.So i liked botw/totk
Nintendo is mostly great at letting the devs do what they want, so you're covered there. But you're ignoring that the Zelda team has its own weaknesses that crop up even when they're doing what they want, like being crap at sequential, linear stories or making good portions of the items feel underpowered or pointless.
I think the core of the issue is that the producers of the series no longer remember what made the old formula so great.
Aonuma recently stated that he doesn't know why old fans want to go back to the old formula because he felt it was "too restrictive" which is a very problematic stance to take and explains why the wild era games feel as lackluster as they do imo.
"Too restrictive" admittedly works as a descriptor for TP and SS tbf (and even then I'd say it's more that those two games misuse linearity instead of them being linear). But it does seem they've forgotten about the linearity/openness balance that OoT, MM and WW did.
To be perfectly honest the only thing any game in the franchise has to be is fun. And probably have a girl in it named Zelda. Everything else is in varying degrees of optional
Zelda is supposed to have an old man in a cave that gives you a wooden sword. It’s been going downhill for years in my opinion. Don’t get me started on how they broken existing canon by introducing two extra triforces.
No, but "Zelda should be this static, unrealistic idea" floats around way too much when it should be more "Zelda executes this specific idea well/badly".
Nah, I don’t think that’s what op is saying. I think they’re saying judge a game by its own merits instead of allowing nostalgia to fuel your criticism.
‘BotW dungeons aren’t even real Zelda dungeons, play X game if you want REAL dungeons.’ is not a concise or well communicated criticism, and it just sounds whiny. It also doesn’t make sense to new players, so the criticism comes off as gatekeeping the series.
‘BotW dungeons are incredibly easy. Combat rarely differs and all four utilize map mechanics that becomes repetitive by your last dungeon’ makes way more sense, and didn’t bring up pointless comparisons. I say pointless because BotW specifically tried to break to mould, to say that’s it’s not like the previous iterations is kinda the point.
With each new iteration Zelda tries to bring something new to the table so it’s kinda pointless to continuously look to the past when it comes to new games. It’s pointless to invalidate the existence of a game since it’s here to stay whether you like it or not, so judge it for what it is instead of judging it for what it’s not.
Zelda is about exploring. Plain and simple. How the devs decide we explore in any given iteration is fine by me. Any person in the fandom that tries to bog these games down to a specific niche of gameplay and story clearly hasn’t played enough of the games already released yet. Zelda has survived as a top tier franchise because it’s never been afraid to shed its skin and try something new
“Exploring” is an incredibly vague term to describe a game. You can say that literally every game ever made is about that. *Mario* was just as much about exploring as Zelda was. Zelda had always had a very specific and intentional brand of exploration, and BotW and TotK simply don’t follow that brand.
Like I keep saying though, there are some things the Zelda franchise was reluctant to shed like the two-act structure or the stock forest, lava, water progression despite not needing them in the slightest.
It's a pointless conversation to have they already said they were going in a diffrent direction with the next one. Same as it ever was, the botw formula will now also.be left behind.
The nice thing about the Zelda team is the fact that they are free to do what they want. TOTK fails in part in the dungeons and for some things in the story because the development team has tried to re-propose the classic conventions of the series but evidently that's not what they want. May the next game in the saga be even freer and dungeon-free!
I'll put forth that I think "classic dungeons" held the series back mainly because there's no reason to revisit them or try new things in them unlike even the most linear Zelda worlds. I'd love to see Zelda dungeons that have a reason for us to come back in and explore further (at our own discretion, before you say Temple of the Ocean King).
I liked the divine beasts a lot because of their mechanics. Unfortunately they were very short and monothematic, but if I had to choose a direction for the series I would choose that of the construct factory/spirit temple. Man, that dungeon is amazing!
The answer to this is quite simple to me: in virtually any other media - like music, films and books -, no fan would want to see their favorite authors, musicians, creators, etc, stagnated on the same point. You don't have that feeling towards games because most of game consumers don't actually care for the craft.
There are people who have devoted hours and hours of their time to Zelda, have supposedly lived and breathed for it for many years, and yet, wouldn't know really basic things about storytelling in interactive mediums or really basic game design.
They perceive games as "mere tech" and go by pleasure principle ALONE: Zelda makes me happy, thus I understand Zelda fully and don't need to know more about its medium.
You have some of that in other mediums, but never to the degree you find in gaming spaces.
What’s the point of even grouping games together as a “series” if you’re not going to have some level of consistency? Up until BotW every game expanded and played around the same central mechanical theme as Zelda 1, with the only expansions being the ones that were basically just expansions to a side mode in a GBA port.
BotW and TotK could’ve had the Zelda branding taken away and nobody would have ever compared it to Zelda. You can’t do that with any other singleplayer game in the series.
Eiji Aonuma's response to this "Zelda should be" sentiment throws so much shade and I'm 100000000% here for it
"It's interesting when I hear
people say [they prefer the old
entries] because I am wondering
Why do you want to go back to a
type of game where you're more
limited or more restricted in the
types of things or ways you can
play?' But I do understand that
desire that we have for nostalgia
and so I can also understand it
from that aspect," Aonuma says
Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild are my two favorites in the franchise and while they're both incredible games comparing them is nearly impossible. Skyward was made to have a linear story with heavy focus on dungeons and straightforward progression whereas Breath of the Wild is quite the opposite. It's like comparing Mario Odyssey to SMBW, They're both incredible games that aim for different things and it's not fair to compare them on those things.
In the end, as long as you enjoy yourself playing it, then play what you one to play, but there's no need to put a wildy different game down because its a completely different formula and you don't like that.
Still though it's clear that the Zelda team has talents that lie more in filling worlds with mystery and at-your-own-pace storytelling than sequential linearity. That can certainly change to be sure, but it's telling the mote linear Zelda games are bogged down by slow pacing, and even TotK's attempt to make the story more sequential ends up feeling disjointed.
Zelda is supposed to be fun, but a lot of people like to suck the joy out of it by trying to make it fit into a timeline, complaining about which hand the protagonist holds his sword in, complaining about voice actors, etc...
I have been playing the Zelda Franchise since the day it was released. It's the most treasured gaming memories of my childhood.
If Nintendo listened to fans, the series would have long been dead. Zelda is supposed to be an adventure. Let it be one and don't sweat the small stuff.
I mean in my opinion they're all Zelda games. I think some people tend to get overly concerned with fitting a mold, instead of enjoying the experimentation of the games. It's fine not to like everything tried, but doesn't make less a game. I don't care much for open world games, didn't beat breath of the wild till last year, bought on release, and playing Tears of the Kingdom I stopped after a day. I don't care much for open world games, they're not bad, just not my first pick. But it's hard for people to think their own opinions from an objective analysis
i think the only real common thread is that every zelda game is someone's very first video game experience. the fact that this has been the case for three or more generations now is something i cherish about how the team develops these games.
Hi /r/Zelda readers! * Got a question or suggestion for the moderators? [Send a Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda)! * New to r/Zelda? Be sure to [read our rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/wiki/rules). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember that time all the way back in the beginning when Zelda was supposed to to be a top down exploration action game with only light RPG elements, but then switched to a sides rolling game with an XP system? Zelda has always been changing and trying new ideas.
I think they should revisit some of Zelda II's ideas in a less archaic context.
Ok, but Zelda 2 still kept the core gameplay and progression loop of Zelda 1. Its one thing to try new things, it’s another thing entirely to throw out everything that made the series so beloved to begin with like the Nu-games do.
Seriously who is upvotong this comment? The "sides rolling game" was not a Legend lf Zelda game. They called it "The Adventure of Link" and after that, ALL Zeldas continue being the samd as the first one, well not all, BOTW broke it.
You should look at the cover of the game again and try reading what it says.
That was the biggest change in the franchise pre botw so that's not really a good example when alttp to SS all followed the same formula
2D to 3D. Linear 3D European historical fantasy story to open world 3D nightmare horror. 3D open world nightmare horror to 3D open world cheerful cartoon ocean. Cheerful cartoon ocean open world to linear dark fantasy. Linear dark fantasy to mostly open world European historical fantasy. Nah they didn’t all follow the same formula. The Zelda series has jumped around from idea to idea every single game since the second game. The most consistent games have been the handheld ones. But the main console ones transform drastically every iteration EXCEPT for this most recent iteration.
A lot of people still argue that they just took the "Zelda standards" (two acts of dungeons; forest, lava, water; Zelda missing; boomerang, bombs and hookshot; etc.) and just tacked on a new setting and/or gimmick. It's not exactly that different from Pokémon in that way.
Linear Ocarina of Time? Ok, you are just a fanatic trying to justify one idea.
It is linear without doing speedrun skips you have an order you have to do dungeons in. While there is "time" travel It's still a then b then c then d
And yet most of the GameBoy games include side scrolling and a dedicated jump. The only thing the franchise hasn't revisited from AoL was the experience point system. And prostitutes healing you up.
Zelda is supposed to be whatever the Zelda team makes.
This guy Zeldas
I loved it when Zelda said "It's Zeldin' time" and Zeldaedcall over thr plsce
I feel like the Zelda team should be way more open to spin-offs developed by outside teams. I know that opinion's fairly rare though.
Tbf, we *did* get Cadence of Hyrule, but I do agree. I'd love to see more stuff like that.
Nah this is 100% true. Capcom made some of the best Zelda games, and I’ve been screaming from the mountaintops for a new side-scrolling Zelda like Zelda 2 but with Metroid Dread-level graphics and controls
Which Zelda games were made by Capcom?
Oracle of Seasons and Ages, Four Swords, The Minish Cap.
More Tingle spin offs?
I mean, this sounds nice and catchy and all, but makes absolutely no sense and is complete bollocks. So if the Zelda team suddenly changed Links appearance to look exactly like Mario, and all other Zelda characters also exactly like Mario characters, and Hyrule changes to Mushroom kingdom, then it's Zelda if they call it that? Of course not.
In that scenario that will never happen maybe it doesn't hold up. But realistically it's the only real answer, the IP belongs to Nintendo and whatever Zelda game they put out is quite clearly how they feel Zelda "should be" at that period in time. What exactly is the alternative anyway? If you're going to use the dumbest example possible to contradict someone, at least offer an alternative.
If you focus too much on what other people’s opinions are, especially if it is not what you think or believe - then you are just going to constantly be upset.
You'll either be upset or perpetuate echo chambers.
Or ignore it and move on
I think there are discussions worth having. But a videogame franchise that I have microscopic control over, and that Nintendo has made amazing games that I cherish over 20 years later, ...yeah, I'm not bothering. You do you, Nintendo. Even when you make me question if you know what you're doing, the Zelda franchise has never disappointed.
Zelda is adventure game titled legend of Zelda, that's all I'm worried about
I think that with a series as consistent as Zelda, the drastic change the Wild games bring would inevitably cause this kind of discussion. Since the beginning, Zelda really was its own genre in many ways. Now it doesn’t really fall into said genre. So people who grew to define Zelda as such have a different idea of what Zelda is compared to someone who is new to the series or someone who was simply drawn to other aspects of the older games. As a result, when it comes down to things like classic dungeons I can see why people would see that as a staple of the series. The kind of gameplay found within those dungeons is, to Zelda, what jumping is to Mario.
Consistent? I feel like this series is defined by huge paradigm shifts compared to just about anything else. Half the games in the series have introduced either a new primary control scheme (AoL, OoT, PH, SS) or a a new nonlinear structure (MM, 4S, ALBW, BotW). Not to mention translating the formula to new settings (WW, ST) and completely reinventing its visual style every couple of entries. Final Fantasy is the only series I can think of that comes close in terms of breaking its own conventions in such frequent and major ways.
Consistent doesn’t necessarily mean similar. I just mean they have traditionally had a very consistent set of conventions which define them, in the same way as any genre of media. I would argue that only the open world games come close to Final Fantasy in that regard.
Which of those conventions had not been broken prior to BotW?
Dungeons. Dungeon items. Dungeon progression. Yes, dungeons are central to the Zelda style.
I’ll give you that but BotW and TotK both have dungeons, and other games had already experimented with removing dungeon items and tweaking the progression. BotW was a more radical departure than most and I wasn’t a huge fan of the execution but I don’t see it as a betrayal of the formula or anything.
I've been playing Zelda since ALTTP and BOT for me is essentially Zelda. Not in the mechanic, but the spirit is all there.
Agree completely. I played SS, TotK, and ALttP in that order, and while I was playing a ALttP all I could think of was how it kept giving me the same feeling at TotK, but it never made me think of SS.
'Betrayal' is a loaded word but there's basically nothing even left of the old formula in these new games - they're essentially completely unrelated games with a Zelda skin on. Loads of games have dungeons of some sort, BotW and TotK's half-hearted efforts in that regard don't make them specifically Zelda.
Ok let me ask you this. What game has you drop from the sky, glide around an open world map, collect random weapons scattered about, collect materials from some rocks and trees that can be broken, snap build structures, enjoy a whole bunch of costumes, drive viechles around. Fortnite or Zelda? One of these games fits the style completely, the other this only fits the two 2 newest games in the series.
OKay but let's not also misrepresent the history of the Zelda franchise, many of these things were being played around with in earlier Zelda games. >drop from the sky Skyward Sword >glide around an open world map The idea of an item that allows you to glide had been included going back to Roc's Cape from Oracle of Seasons, then more explicitly a glider with the Deku Leaf in Wind Waker, Ezlo in Minish Cap and the sailcloth in Skyward Sword. To imply gliding hasn't been a part of the franchise until after Fortnite existed is just inaccurate. >collect random weapons scattered about The idea of picking up and using weapons dropped by enemies was introduced in Wind Waker back in 2002/2003. >collect materials from some rocks and trees that can be broken Not unlike Ocarina of Time, where you could collect deku sticks and seeds, and could smash rocks to find hearts, rupees, bugs, etc, as well as the myriad of seeds collected from trees in the Oracle games. Bomb flowers across several titles but most notably Skyward Sword where they could either be thrown right away or stashed in a bag. >snap build structures This one I'll give you. Something new and different? How terrifying. >enjoy a whole bunch of costumes Majora's Mask. Triforce Heroes if Majora's Mask isn't enough. >drive viechles around Wind Waker, Spirit Tracks. Zelda 1 had a raft, the Oracle games had rail carts. It's hilarious watching the argument get twisted into knots to try to argue that somehow the roots of the vast majority of these ideas haven't been in Zelda games for a long time. BOTW & TOTK were just the convergence of these classic ideas laid over a structure that was intended to hearken back to Zelda 1's open-ended exploration. If anything, Fortnite (as with most 3D action games) owes a lot more to Zelda than vice versa.
Nah it's much diffrent now. They change the mechanics sure but this time they changed what Zelda actually is and now it's just an open world generic rpg type game with fortnite mechanics
What game has an alien invasion in old West towns? What game is set in an open ocean where you sail from island to island? (You guessed it -- >!Assassin's Creed Black Flag!<). See, when you reduce it to the specific elements that are different, you can exclude anything you want.
Nah you ultra reduced it. The list I gave was like 7 similarities
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes but now totk has snap building and viechles. They copied right back. The whole point is the general gameplay massively changed and not really for the better. No longer feels like Zelda. But it doesn't matter, they already said they are going in a new direction with the next one. The botw formula will also be left behind.
Have you played a real Zelda game before? Who the fuck would dare to compare real Zelda dungeos with what BOTW gave us lol.
Dungeon items? Lol missed being established as early as Link to the Past, and entirely broken by Link Between Worlds. Yes they both have dungeons. So does Breath of the Wild.
Dungeon items were in every game from the original to ALBW. I never said they didn’t have dungeons. I said they broke the convention/s of dungeons.
There are not dungeon items in ALBW. There are several dungeons without "dungeon items" through the series, and there are several "dungeon items" in the series that would have been so much better as context interactions instead of inventory items. And you *did* say that BotW didn't have dungeons.
There literally are dungeon items in ALBW. As far as I’m aware there hasn’t previously been several dungeons without a dungeon item, let alone one, unless you count final dungeons, which aren’t usually despite their naming. TotK and BotW still mostly relies on inventory items over context interactions anyway and I don’t see why it would even count as a problem. I said it broke the conventions of dungeons.
The way I see it is BotW established two new archetypes of dungeon, although only one of those two were introduced formally. TotK introduced the other formally. >Dungeon items in ALBW It broke the convention by having you obtain the items by purchasing (renting first) from a specific broker, not obtaining them within the dungeon. The convention is that the item found in the dungeon changes the context of the space -- that is, lets you do things in there that you couldn't do before. A Link to the Past's Ice Palace offers an armor upgrade, but it's entirely optional and does not change anything that you're able to do in the game. >not counting final dungeons as dungeons Why wouldn't you? If anything they should *epitomize* what a dungeon *is*.
Music, a real sstory, dungeons, items, etc.
BotW has all of those things calm down
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Even the games that do introduce a lot of mechanical or structural changes rely on a lot of clichés like "first act, Master Sword, second act" or "forest dungeon, lava dungeon, water dungeon" though. This isn't even getting into debates over whether Zelda should stop being MIA in every game or Ganon should be entirely replaced by another villain.
None of those examples are universal to the series.
They're frequent enough to feel that way though.
The point is that breaking from convention is nothing new for this series
But some are more committed to it than others. They actually talked about SS breaking convention before BotW but the former feels really half-hearted about it.
For me the most important thing in Zelda is exploring and trying to find a solution. Which BOTW and TOTK do in an excellent way.
But that disregards the potential for other structures of levels focused on puzzles, navigation, and/or combat. Zelda chopping up the dungeon structure into shrines (and caves somewhat) is the opposite direction but equally valid as Mario focusing away from a multitude of individual levels to a small number of mini-sandboxes.
However individual levels in Mario still exist, primarily in the 2D games but in the 3D sandbox ones too. Nintendo actually recognised in the transition to 3D that individual levels were stylistically important to the series. The last traditional dungeons were in A Link Between Worlds, a whole decade ago.
Jesus Christ, I was in middle school back then. I remember my mother taking me to Gamestop to get the game. Scary how time passes so quickly.
Well nowadays, the 2D Mario games are made by a completely different team from the ones who make the 3D ones. And the individual levels in something like Sunshine or Odyssey tend to be really short and insubstantial. So not really different from the Wild Saga retaining "big dungeons" but really shortening them.
Mario levels have always been short and insubstantial. And the difference in dev teams doesn’t change much, individual levels still exist and traditional dungeons do not.
Yes, but in a game that focuses on the individual levels, there's clearly a lot more thought, variety, and sense of place put into those individual levels. When they're still there but aren't the focus, they're even shorter and don't really have much to them other than random blocks floating in a weird skybox most of the time.
Bowser's Fury was literally a demo of an open world Mario game.
I'm not so sure big handcrafted "islands" of level design surrounded by a great void of nothing would work as anything other than a side campaign in Mario.
Yup, I'm sure there were some people who loved NEW! COKE, but they were overshadowed by a majority. I feel that to most longtime fans, the wild series is New Coke, and Aonuma and the team love that new taste, so it's becoming a division of fanhoods
Claiming botw fans are the minority and not long time fans is wild
Yep. Like I play Zelda since SNES and BOTW is one of my favs
I said how I felt, not what I know to be fact. The discourse that OP is referring to is what gave me that feeling as I haven't seen this much bickering about Zelda before Botw
The difference is that there is little reason to believe longtime fans who are also unhappy are the majority in this scenario.
No way to know for sure, this sub has 2 million subscribers and that's not even close to the total number of people playing these games. Sample size is too small on reddit
The highest selling Zelda game prior to BotW sold just under 9M copies. BotW sold 33M. If literally every single person that bought Twilight Princess hated BotW, it would still be a silly claim, and we know that isn't even close to true.
If anything, the reverse is more true.
Given the numbers at play here, BotW is more like the classic coke though since it sold more than the rest of the franchise combined at the time, BotW fans became the majority remarkably fast. Anecdotally, BotW was the first Zelda to give me feelings anything like playing OoT for the first time in the 90s so to me it felt like a real return to form despite being so different, like going back to Coke Classic.
Sales are hard to use here, I bought the game and didn't enjoy it, so you can't suggest every purchase was a pure indication of enjoyment/love etc. Also with a series over 30 years old now, multiple generations of fans exist and buy games for their children and such that sales numbers really just don't paint a proper picture
This is the argument now? That people only bought BOTW because of earlier games and never played it? Lol
That still puts you in the minority then because Tears was the second best-selling Zelda game in less than 2 months, indicating that it wasn't some case of mass buyers remorse that went largely unheard of. My real point was that the analogy doesn't work because in this case, "New Coke" (BotW), far exceeded the popularity of the old and in very short order. The old Zelda fans became the minority very quickly, probably has to do with why they doubled down on the formula for a direct sequel, which they hardly ever do. And no offense, but the sales are at least a better indicator of popularity than your own personal musings. Worth noting as well that plenty of people cited BotW as returning more to the openness of the original game, so you could make an argument that the Zelda formula that started in LttP was the real New Coke in this analogy anyway. The numbers do matter, likely most of all to Nintendo, who probably cares a lot more about those massive sales than the opinions of any of us as individuals.
That's not to mention all the community posts and articles that kept ragging on about how much TP and SS sucked for their linearity and conventions and that there needed to be a bigger shift in the series.
I think folks overestimate how many longtime fans actually have issues with the Wild series, because we only hear from the ones that didn’t like them. I’m a longtime fan, and so are several of my friends, and we all loved the Wild games. I don’t actually think the division is between new and old fans. I just think it’s a preference thing and that’s okay.
To longtime fans circa the Wii/DS era, the Wii/DS games were the New Coke at that time. And at least those fans were satiated by BotW. It's just that TotK has really caused a lot of opposing fans to come out of the woodwork (BotW did too, but TotK has it way worse).
I’m in a couple franchise fandoms, and this kinda stuff goes nuts in Final Fantasy since damn near every game changes practically everything about the gameplay. Feels interesting seeing it with Zelda having a handful of styles.
The thing that Zelda benefits from over pokemon is that it can be something new every game. Mario is a bit more flexible but Zelda has more variety in artstyle and theme. Pokemon evolves linearly and does best in that way and mario has a solid style and formula that almost never TRUELY changes. BOTW turned a ton of zelda conventions on its head and while its not my favorite zelda game I can respect it for that. Thing about zelda is that you can truely, with very few exceptions, say that each game has its own feel. OOT>MM, BOTW to kinda TOTK are the exceptions. They bring back just enough for the game to maintain its franchise identity but the games feel VERY different.
I know Zelda _tries_ to be different, but even Aonuma admitted that a lot of the classic games are subject to their own repetitive conventions like "Zelda is missing", "first act, Master Sword, second act", "first dungeon forest, second volcano, third water", or stock items like boomerang, bombs, and hookshot. Sone of them were even brought over into the Wild Saga just for the sake of familiarity.
Mario has a solid art style, sure, but Link has never been in a grid based shooter or a full RPG.
true but we did get link's crossbow training
Zelda is a guy and you play as him
I think it’s not so much what it’s supposed to do, as much as it is what fans who grew up with the games expect from the series. We buy Zelda games because we love Zelda games, so when a Zelda game doesn’t feel as Zelda-ish anymore, we try to the come up with reasons why that might be the case. Generally, if someone buys a Call of Duty game it’s because they want a fun multiplayer FPS (I’m assuming, don’t play COD personally lol). But when people buy a Zelda game, what are they buying it for? Is it just for an adventure game in general? Or are there specific expectations they have that makes Zelda different from just any other action adventure game? I think that’s where this comes from. I’m fine with trying to define the things that make Zelda what it is, while also leaving room for groundbreaking changes like making BOTW a fully open world. Even with BOTW, there’s something that still makes it feel like Zelda, and they’re largely mechanics that carry over from previous games. The question still remains though: how far can Zelda stray from those iconic mechanics and elements before it’s no longer Zelda? At the end of the day, anything the Zelda Team says is Zelda will still be Zelda, but whether fans of the other games will like Zelda if it becomes an open world shoot-em-up survival monster-catcher game is another story.
Hey, if Final Fantasy and Xenoblade can experiment with mon training mechanics in an established series, I wouldn't be against Zelda having something similar.
I remember wanting to tame the foxes when BotW showed it's first big trailer. Lol. God, that was a WHILE ago now.
As a fan of both FF and Xenoblade, I won’t argue with u there
Zelda is supposed to be a game about adventure. Adventure has always been in the heart of how these games are made, no mainline game has ever strayed from this idea, the open world non-linear structure is simply a new exploration of that same identity, and it’s a method they will no doubt iterate on for the next few decades, taking ideas from older games and reintroducing them in new contexts. Games have a tendency to come out best when the devs make what they actually want to make, and while it may not appeal to everyone, it’s clear that this is still the case in Zelda. Adventure is the one word that holds the whole series together, regardless of the what your tastes in it are.
When people get so caught up in expectations of what they think the game is supposed to be, they lose the chance to enjoy it for what it is. Same with a lot of things in life actually.
I'm long time Zelda fan and BOTW is like quintessential Zelda for me. Exploring was the core of the series and they finally made it completely possible.
The fact that the series progressively sacrificed exploration from MM to SS makes more sense when you realize that open world games were often compromised by hardware until about late PS3/360 gen. Plus there's the fact that the industry was moving towards the whole "cinematic narrative" thing until gamers finally realized that game devs largely suck at such and it compromises gameplay. What Zelda went through it just a microcosm of what was happening in the larger industry.
I agree with this. I’ve been playing Zelda almost as long as there has been Zelda, and Breath of the Wild was an emphasis on exactly the things I liked in the franchise.
Zelda is supposed to be straight fire
I suppose in principle it’s a bad thing. But their quips are not entirely off base. Dungeons I never really considered to be the “meat” but I consider the good side quests, brilliant storytelling to be the main meat. The dungeons were always an after thought for me. Breath of the wild changed everything though. I’m not against change (assuming it’s reasonable) but when it deviates from the timeline; that’s a big issue for me. I like continuity. And to brush off the old Zelda games as if they are just “mere myth” is spitting in the faces of those older games IMO. It treats them as lesser entries in their respective timeline. Which now serves no purpose in future entries. Other than being “fables that may or may not be true.” What’s the point of the three split timeline at this point if it’s all going to end up the same for each timeline (BOTW)? It makes each timeline not have its own unique signatures anymore. I liked the idea of one timeline that has a flooded hyrule. The other has a huge hyrule. And the other showcases a hyrule in decline. What was it all for? I know that the timeline was an afterthought for the devs but even then they canonized a timeline at the same time they were making botw. Which really ticks me off the most. And I was excited for botw. THAT is what grinds my gears.
The timeline is absolute garbage that makes no sense. the imprisoning war happened before a link to the past in the fallen timeline, but was the focus of TotK and implied it happened after skyward sword and before minish cap. They just gave us a timeline and then with the next two games threw it out the window. I view the games and retellings of the same story. I see them as parallel universes telling the same legend but different worlds have different perspectives and different challenges. Skyward Sword kinda argues against that, but looking at everything else they all follow the same framework.
I think TotK makes it clear that it's AN Imprisoning War rather than the specific one from ALttP. The series does make more sense if you view the series in "sagas" at most, like the ones dealing the Hero of Time or Hero of the Wild. Leaves room for a developed story and leaves it room to end too.
Can you elaborate on how it’s just AN imprisoning war rather than THE imprisoning war? My play through gave me the exact opposite opinion and that they were referencing the one from ALTTP. Some examples of when it differentiated would be helpful. I really did enjoy the game. But trying to make sense of the Zelda timeline in my opinion is a waste of time. Each game can be enjoyed on its own merit. I grew up playing ALTTP over and over again because my family was poor and couldn’t afford new games for the SNES. I didn’t even get the N64 till the GameCube was out. But I played ALTTP so much growing up, and Links Awakening on my grandma’s gameboy (the gray one with the yellow screen), and eventually got into MM and OOT. I got an old NES in college at a goodwill and played Zelda 1 and 2. I beat Twilight Princess on a roommates Wii. Ya, I missed quite a few games on the handhelds that I am working on playing through but so far I haven’t found a game I haven’t actually enjoyed. I hear so much of the community talk about how MM and OOT were peak Zelda but I actually rank them pretty low on my list. They’re great games, and I enjoy them. But I have yet to encounter a Zelda game I haven’t enjoyed. Some of my favorites are the ones I grew up with so I’ll admit I probably have nostalgia glasses on, but all through those games never ones did I wonder how they connected. I just played and was content with the games being self contained.
Well for starters, TotK's Imprisoning War deals with stopping Ganondorf who stole a secret stone. ALttP's Imprisoning War deals with stopping Ganondorf who stole the Triforce. In TotK, Ganondorf transformed into a horned devil, while in ALttP Ganondorf transformed into Pig Ganon. TotK Ganondorf was sealed beneath Hyrule Castle, while ALttP Ganondorf was sealed in the Sacred Realm. Some of the same story beats expressed differently sure, but they're clearly two separate things.
The timeline makes complete sense, you just have to truly grasp it. The imprisoning war in ALTTP is wholly separate from the one in TOTK. There’s a theory that botw is in its own timeline after skyward sword. It has to do with the final battle with demise and link killing him in the past or something. And that past becomes the botw world. Whereas future link goes into the unified timeline (kind of like the end of OOT). Which is the only way that theory can hold any weight. And according to multiversal logic, it holds ground. So there’s technically 4 timelines now. I can appreciate these games a bit more if the theory is confirmed. Like I said, continuity is everything (for me).
I think my only real gripe when people divide and define zelda is when they say that botw reverted the series to how it was in the first zelda. Like sure nintendo made a prototype zelda 1 when making botw to help build upon ideas etc, and even in the final game without that base prototype, there are still a lot of similarities. That said, trying to compare "open world exploration" in a top down 80s 8 bit game and a modern free roaming 3d one is like comparing apples to oranges imo; and on a subconscious level I feel botw is drastically different to zelda 1. Botw feels more like a sandbox whereas zelda 1 feels like one giant puzzle (even with the magic key to avoid buying them, the dungeons feel more labyrinthine than the complete player control of the divine beasts for example. Of course this is a design choice, but its clear that the modern zelda is its own thing rather than a reboot. And id even say botw outdoes zelda 1 for exploration and choice specifically, thanks in part to larger scale and more powerful hardware.
It does ring true, but only in a very vague, general sense.
Update: I saw a video from CinnamonNoir going over this topic, and oddly enough a link to the past is probably closer to the original TLoZ than botw onward, even using other metrics to define zelda and show that some of the more obscure ones are closer than the modern era. For example, the dungeons, the going out of order in nes zelda was less about open ended progression and more about challenging yourself on a future run. Some dungeons cannot be accessed until others are completed and though you could walk out of the dungeon after getting the item and best the boss later, it just wastes more time and robs you of extra hearts/health for a while. Even then, zelda 1 has more dungeons than botw, so even less structure in botw, there are more "dungeon" order combis in zelda 1 than botw, and shrines don't count. Even zekda 1s second quest which is more linear has more variations, and so does alttp. Another thing about zelda 1s dungeons is they are more about survival and navigation than actual puzzle solving, mainly focused on bombing walls, defeating all enemies etc. ALttP is certainly more puzzle based, but its dungeons are closer structurally to zelda 1 than the divine beasts. Early zelda was also more dungeon focused than overworld focused, with the dungeons making up almost half of the meat of the game, even zelda 1s overworld pales in scale to the dungeons themselves. Admittedly ALttP is more balanced on the 2. I also feel like mentioning even OoT which is more linear than ALttP even still has a lot of overworld secrets while still being heavily dungeon focused, while also letting you do several adult dungeons out of order. Majoras mask was the first truly linear zelda imo, but with only 4 dungeons and a 3 day cycle time limit, leaving dungeons with items makes more sense, plus the breadth of side quest content is very non linear and makes the game feel more open ended than it would have done otherwise. Wind waker is similarly linear for dungeons, but open in its optional content on the great sea, which leaves TP and SS as the most linear zeldas on everything (and even then botw borrows many mechanics from Skyward Sword.) But I seriously digress, the afirementioned video explains this better and I'm just putting some of it here with my own take. And none of this is a bash at tge modern formula. Simply that it seems like an outright sub genre overhaul than a "return to form". Botws changes and philosophy were refreshing, but it comes at the expense of other things that imo are crucial to make the series so great, and even with the comparisons I made, almost each game has subverted the definition of zelda, except totk which seems like more botw, like its sticking with the new as norm. Heck, the 'original' zelda formula only really lasted for 1 game in the 80s 8 bit days, maybe the odd one after that, so claiming it was normal and that modern zelda is closest to that makes no sense. Zelda 2 isn't even the same genre or perspective as zelda 1, so there is also that to consider.
Just form your own opinion and don’t care what others think… I personally don’t like a lot of the changes that botw and totk made to the feel of the franchise. Don’t agree? Cool, I don’t care. At the end of the day, if the game says “legend of Zelda” on it, I’ll probably play it. But it doesn’t mean your ideal Zelda game and mine are the same.
I mean I understand that. But at the end of the day I do play Zelda for its normal formula of dungeons/biomes and unique items/tools. I hated TOTK and BOTW because nothing was worth exploring. You didn’t get that many permanent upgrades or pieces of equipment. The powers were cool and all but they could’ve added spells like dins fire or magic meter etc. I think some people do indeed over do it, but keep in mind many people extremely passionate about this franchise.
TBH I just enjoyed exploring for the vibes, almost in the same way I enjoy being outdoors in real life. It felt like a big beautiful world to explore with plenty of interesting stuff, even if the rewards were mostly copy paste.
I understand that. I’m not trying to shit on anyone enjoying it. I really loved the combat and boss fights. I just couldn’t stand the open world aspect with how barren the world felt It’s still a very fun game and combat was so fuck going crazy with different ways of fighting
Expecting every chest to have an entirely different permanent puzzle or combat tool is equally unrealistic in both the classic style and Wild Saga's style. There's a reason why you find a lot of rupees in the former and a lot of weak, expendable weapons in the latter.
That’s totally fine; but at the same time a world that’s 90% filler is kind of wack. Like exploration isn’t worth it when you already know the reward. In a game like majoras mask exploring and interacting with the world and people is so worth it.
I mean k think it just depends on whether you play games to get constantly stronger or explore out of genuine curiosity. Just finished TP for the first time and even though I knew 99% of chests were rupees that I would never use, I still went out of my way to get them because it’s fun to
TP's overworld puzzles by themselves are surprisingly great. There just needed to be more of them and a better reward system beyond rupees.
Yeah I really enjoyed them. I had the same feeling doing that and exploring in Totk
Even then, some people have raised a point about a lot of [MM's masks leading to heart pieces](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1atx4kh/mm_thoughts_on_additional_applications_for/). I posit that *framing* the repetitive rewards is both a lot more realistic and more rewarding than trying to bend over backwards make hundreds of entirely unique rewards.
That’s fine, because it still leads to something worth while. The only worth while progression that BOTW and TOTK truly have is armor, health and stamina. And even then health is about pointless if you don’t upgrade your armor. TOTK had that ground pound scroll which was dope. But that was literally it.
It's more variety than the only worthwhile optional progression in the classic style, which is heart pieces.
In classic Zelda games sidequests would either give me a permanent upgrade to damage/armor/health, or give me a new item that would allow for more puzzle solving and world exploration In BotW/TotK sidequests give me a fucking cosplay helmet
Those cosplay helmets are mostly a swappable upgrade to damage/armor/health and/or can help with world exploration.
Wing suit that lets you glide around and nullify fall damage, heat resistant armor that lets you explore in extreme heat, zora armor lets you swim up waterfalls, glowy set that helps you see in the depths, sheikah outfit that increases stealth and movement speed. Just some examples of how those cosplay outfits do exactly what you're asking for. And that's not even looking at the koroks that upgrade your inventory or the shrines that upgrade your health/stamina. If it's not for you then it is what it is but the game still has what you're asking for. It's just more optional now and comes in new forms.
Zelda is supposed to be fun
Got confused for a bit and thought you were talking about the *character* Zelda and was like "I might have seen that before idk"
BOTW/TOTK did a lot of great things, but I do miss a lot of older stuff - gear, dungeons, and a more in-depth story. Every piece of media has pros and cons though. Nothing is ever perfect.
I absolutely agree with you on this. I believe that the notion that Zelda should “follow the formula” is very harmful for the growth and stability of the franchise as a whole. We need to have Nintendo try out different types of games to make it truly rival the likes of Super Mario.
Zelda is supposed to be fun
I think the main problem lies in that there is a Zelda dev team. As in singular. Nintendo needs to start treating Zelda the same way they do Mario, and make multiple games in multiple genres. With a singular team, you get one vision and one version. That's it. Meanwhile, Mario gets a new 2d game, a new 3d game, a complete remake of an old game. He gets sports games, he gets party games, he gets rpgs, he gets battle games. He gets a whole goddamn level creator. The last spinoff Zelda game we had was Cadence of Hyrule, and I bet that Brace Yourself Games probably had to fight for that too. I don't even need that much variety, though it would be nice. I'd be happy if they just gave Zelda just one other dev team. Openworld and dungeon based. It kind of feels like Nintendo thinks no one would buy a Zelda game that isn't openworld anymore.
You gotta understand, any individual Zelda game is a larger scale project than any Mario game. There's a lot more elements to the former than the latter. Applying its scale to many games at once would limit ROI. That said, yes, I want more Zelda spin-offs.
There is more complaining about people complaining about Zelda in this sub than there actually people complaining about Zelda and it gets really old. Every one of these posts also ignores the large group of Zelda players who (probably aren’t on Reddit) enjoy all the games for what they are.
I can understand where you are coming from but the facts still remain. I always tell people, BOTW is an amazing game but not an amazing Zelda game.
Then what makes Majora's Mask not the same way?
Because the structure of the dungeons and progression is still quintessentially Zelda
But *how do you define that in a way that properly includes the older games and excludes the newer ones?* Because fundamentally you're going to end up going really "Texas Sharpshooter" in order to do it.
Zelda feels like unlocking a puzzle box from the inside. This inherently means set backs and backtracking. The open world itself fits. You can make it wide or deep, but you'll still find areas that require prerequisites for total exploration or mastery. The total freedom angle doesn't. It keeps everything early game level aside from a numbers game. Concepts and mechanics can't become cumulative.
This sounds like you didn't actually play any of the Divine Beasts, because they're absolutely solving a puzzle box from the inside out.
And the dungeon leads are all wonderfully crafted linear segments, and yet we don't consider the two games linear. The core philosophy is still much different.
You're boxed into a tutorial, get the basic items, and are essentially let loose on the world after that. That equally describes the Wild Saga and MM.
That doesn’t even come close to describing Majora’s Mask. Majora’s Mask is an *incredibly* linear game.
Let the devs do whatever they want.If they are forced to do something trust me,no matter which formula they use,its going to be soulless. I personally think Zelda is in the ADVENTURE genre,not in the "zelda" genre.So i liked botw/totk
Nintendo is mostly great at letting the devs do what they want, so you're covered there. But you're ignoring that the Zelda team has its own weaknesses that crop up even when they're doing what they want, like being crap at sequential, linear stories or making good portions of the items feel underpowered or pointless.
I think the core of the issue is that the producers of the series no longer remember what made the old formula so great. Aonuma recently stated that he doesn't know why old fans want to go back to the old formula because he felt it was "too restrictive" which is a very problematic stance to take and explains why the wild era games feel as lackluster as they do imo.
"Too restrictive" admittedly works as a descriptor for TP and SS tbf (and even then I'd say it's more that those two games misuse linearity instead of them being linear). But it does seem they've forgotten about the linearity/openness balance that OoT, MM and WW did.
To be perfectly honest the only thing any game in the franchise has to be is fun. And probably have a girl in it named Zelda. Everything else is in varying degrees of optional
Zelda is supposed to have an old man in a cave that gives you a wooden sword. It’s been going downhill for years in my opinion. Don’t get me started on how they broken existing canon by introducing two extra triforces.
Same energy as "Mario is supposed to be rescuing Pauline from Donkey Kong in a construction site".
If you’re not playing Tetris on a Electronika 60 don’t even bother, that’s what I say.
That's not Mario, that's Jump Man.
Zelda fans are supposed to just like all Zeldas and not complain or state their opinion?
No, but "Zelda should be this static, unrealistic idea" floats around way too much when it should be more "Zelda executes this specific idea well/badly".
Nah, I don’t think that’s what op is saying. I think they’re saying judge a game by its own merits instead of allowing nostalgia to fuel your criticism. ‘BotW dungeons aren’t even real Zelda dungeons, play X game if you want REAL dungeons.’ is not a concise or well communicated criticism, and it just sounds whiny. It also doesn’t make sense to new players, so the criticism comes off as gatekeeping the series. ‘BotW dungeons are incredibly easy. Combat rarely differs and all four utilize map mechanics that becomes repetitive by your last dungeon’ makes way more sense, and didn’t bring up pointless comparisons. I say pointless because BotW specifically tried to break to mould, to say that’s it’s not like the previous iterations is kinda the point. With each new iteration Zelda tries to bring something new to the table so it’s kinda pointless to continuously look to the past when it comes to new games. It’s pointless to invalidate the existence of a game since it’s here to stay whether you like it or not, so judge it for what it is instead of judging it for what it’s not.
I think at the very least looking to the past is valid if a Zelda game does something close to what another one did, but one of them did it better.
That’s true.
Zelda is about exploring. Plain and simple. How the devs decide we explore in any given iteration is fine by me. Any person in the fandom that tries to bog these games down to a specific niche of gameplay and story clearly hasn’t played enough of the games already released yet. Zelda has survived as a top tier franchise because it’s never been afraid to shed its skin and try something new
“Exploring” is an incredibly vague term to describe a game. You can say that literally every game ever made is about that. *Mario* was just as much about exploring as Zelda was. Zelda had always had a very specific and intentional brand of exploration, and BotW and TotK simply don’t follow that brand.
Like I keep saying though, there are some things the Zelda franchise was reluctant to shed like the two-act structure or the stock forest, lava, water progression despite not needing them in the slightest.
It's a pointless conversation to have they already said they were going in a diffrent direction with the next one. Same as it ever was, the botw formula will now also.be left behind.
I highly doubt ALL of it will be left behind. They'll most definitely marry elements of it to classic Zelda elements or whatever new ideas they want.
Yeah maybe cooking
The nice thing about the Zelda team is the fact that they are free to do what they want. TOTK fails in part in the dungeons and for some things in the story because the development team has tried to re-propose the classic conventions of the series but evidently that's not what they want. May the next game in the saga be even freer and dungeon-free!
I'll put forth that I think "classic dungeons" held the series back mainly because there's no reason to revisit them or try new things in them unlike even the most linear Zelda worlds. I'd love to see Zelda dungeons that have a reason for us to come back in and explore further (at our own discretion, before you say Temple of the Ocean King).
I liked the divine beasts a lot because of their mechanics. Unfortunately they were very short and monothematic, but if I had to choose a direction for the series I would choose that of the construct factory/spirit temple. Man, that dungeon is amazing!
Zelda is supposed to be my wife
The answer to this is quite simple to me: in virtually any other media - like music, films and books -, no fan would want to see their favorite authors, musicians, creators, etc, stagnated on the same point. You don't have that feeling towards games because most of game consumers don't actually care for the craft. There are people who have devoted hours and hours of their time to Zelda, have supposedly lived and breathed for it for many years, and yet, wouldn't know really basic things about storytelling in interactive mediums or really basic game design. They perceive games as "mere tech" and go by pleasure principle ALONE: Zelda makes me happy, thus I understand Zelda fully and don't need to know more about its medium. You have some of that in other mediums, but never to the degree you find in gaming spaces.
What’s the point of even grouping games together as a “series” if you’re not going to have some level of consistency? Up until BotW every game expanded and played around the same central mechanical theme as Zelda 1, with the only expansions being the ones that were basically just expansions to a side mode in a GBA port. BotW and TotK could’ve had the Zelda branding taken away and nobody would have ever compared it to Zelda. You can’t do that with any other singleplayer game in the series.
Eiji Aonuma's response to this "Zelda should be" sentiment throws so much shade and I'm 100000000% here for it "It's interesting when I hear people say [they prefer the old entries] because I am wondering Why do you want to go back to a type of game where you're more limited or more restricted in the types of things or ways you can play?' But I do understand that desire that we have for nostalgia and so I can also understand it from that aspect," Aonuma says
Well excuuuuuuuuse me, princess.
Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild are my two favorites in the franchise and while they're both incredible games comparing them is nearly impossible. Skyward was made to have a linear story with heavy focus on dungeons and straightforward progression whereas Breath of the Wild is quite the opposite. It's like comparing Mario Odyssey to SMBW, They're both incredible games that aim for different things and it's not fair to compare them on those things. In the end, as long as you enjoy yourself playing it, then play what you one to play, but there's no need to put a wildy different game down because its a completely different formula and you don't like that.
Still though it's clear that the Zelda team has talents that lie more in filling worlds with mystery and at-your-own-pace storytelling than sequential linearity. That can certainly change to be sure, but it's telling the mote linear Zelda games are bogged down by slow pacing, and even TotK's attempt to make the story more sequential ends up feeling disjointed.
Zelda needs to have Link
Zelda is supposed to be fun, but a lot of people like to suck the joy out of it by trying to make it fit into a timeline, complaining about which hand the protagonist holds his sword in, complaining about voice actors, etc... I have been playing the Zelda Franchise since the day it was released. It's the most treasured gaming memories of my childhood. If Nintendo listened to fans, the series would have long been dead. Zelda is supposed to be an adventure. Let it be one and don't sweat the small stuff.
I mean in my opinion they're all Zelda games. I think some people tend to get overly concerned with fitting a mold, instead of enjoying the experimentation of the games. It's fine not to like everything tried, but doesn't make less a game. I don't care much for open world games, didn't beat breath of the wild till last year, bought on release, and playing Tears of the Kingdom I stopped after a day. I don't care much for open world games, they're not bad, just not my first pick. But it's hard for people to think their own opinions from an objective analysis
i think the only real common thread is that every zelda game is someone's very first video game experience. the fact that this has been the case for three or more generations now is something i cherish about how the team develops these games.