The Legend Of Zelda - General Thread

I myself said that combining elements from both styles is not impossible, so I do actually agree with you. The problem is that both sides of the fanbase have an all-or-nothing stance. Fans of the linear games want absolutely nothing from the open-world games, and are essentially asking Nintendo to undo the whole template in favor of fully reinstating the style they want, and vice versa for fans of the open-world games. And Nintendo themselves, being a company aiming to maximize their profits however they can, only think of what can lead to a greater commercial success. Once again, this isn't limited to today's manner of thinking — back in 2003, Aonuma wanted to do a realistic Zelda game because that was what the majority of fans wanted at the time, and it paid off since TP because the best-selling game in the series for the next 10-and-a-third years.

Why did King Daphnes turn into a boat anyway? Did he intentionally reincarnate himself as a boat in anticipation of the Hero of Time reappearing but needing a boat? Did he then go on to live as a boat for centuries until he was needed?

If only Ganondorf had his own boat form for us to have a maritime boss battle against.

Gondoladorf.

All-or-nothing, it’s always been like that and the 7/10 reviews will haunt us for the rest of our lives.

Zelda randomizers are really common and I find the lack of linearity is a good way around this. Nintendo would never program a randomizer but they’ve found a loophole by giving players access to all of Link’s puzzle solving abilities from the get go.

Edited by ChicoTheParakeet on Dec 19th 2023 at 11:17:50 AM

I think the boat was originally inanimate and then he possessed it.

At least we got a train vs. train fight in another game (what with Malladus looking NES Ganon and what not).

Edited by MyFinalEdits on Dec 19th 2023 at 12:28:51 PM

I remember people were even calling the Demon Train itself the Ganondorf Express.

@BOOXMOWO: "What do you mean by "statistically speaking you've seen it three times"? Kind of sounds like that when you beat any dungeon, it is statistically the fourth dungeon, which I don't think is how statistics work."

You're right, I phrased that poorly. It's more along the lines that, while the individual zones' stories are interesting enough, the dungeons are perfunctory (Lightning Temple aside, you can cheese all three of the others with a simple flying machine or even just not-particularly-creative climbing) and the reward you get for resolving each region story is just the same cutscene you've already seen, with one word each changed^note how the Sages refer to their descendants. It doesn't reveal more of the story, by having earlier cutscenes cut off and having subsequent Sages show you more, so you just get the same thing over and over and over, because someone else might have chosen to go to the Gorons first.

(Please note that I really enjoyed the spectacle of the Wind Dungeon, and I'm saying this from the perspective of wishing that the Fire and Water Dungeons had had anything even close.)

Really, if you pick up a specific Dragon Tear and then clear one regional dungeon, you've essentially seen 80% of the story. Also pick up the one with Mineru talking to Zelda about dragon transformation, and that's 90%. I understand that that's an intentional choice they made, but overall I like having the story doled out in more regular intervals. I don't like that they chose to present it in such a way that any time that isn't The Final Confrontation is essentially exactly the same as the very start of the game.

Edited by RedSavant on Dec 20th 2023 at 10:53:53 PM

Yeah the Sage cutscenes definitely feel like a place where they could have put in a bit more effort to make them feel distinct.

I feel like people overweigh cutscenes when talking about story. Like, yeah, you see one Sage cutscene you've basically seen all of the Sage cutscenes, but you haven't seen the other regional phenomena, or the chase through Hyrule Castle, or the Construct Factory, or the search for the Master Sword, or the various side adventures. Most of the cutscenes are backstory, most of the story happens with relatively little cutscenes.

I dunno. The game wants to make "what happened to Zelda" a central mystery. It does kind of blow that with just two or three of the memories, you'll probably have already pieced it together. And even when you have all the memories, with the exception of Impa, the game never acknowledges the knowledge until its "time" for it to be.

This, basically. The game never gives you any reason at all to believe that Zelda has turned evil, not even a fakeout, so it becomes a case of spending 40-ish hours with characters making wrong assumptions and Link not correcting them because he is actually mute now, I guess.

That's also part of the problem, though. I'm not looking for Twilight Princess-level involved stories, since I'd argue that TP almost goes too long in several places; but the regional stories tend to just be your friends from the last game saying "hey Link, another problem happened, can you help?" And then you do. Death Mountain is the one that feels like it's given the most focus, with Yunobu having some character development. Otherwise, you really don't get to spend that much time with the new Sages at all.

Focusing on quests and so on as 'story in the present' does make sense, but I spent a large part of the early-to-mid game confused about how long after Breath this was supposed to have happened, how long Link was out after losing his arm, and why things were assumed to have either happened (Tarrey Town getting built) or not happened (the Koroks and Hestu don't recognize Link at all, among others) with little rhyme or reason. So that didn't feel like a solid narrative anyway.

Look, I don't want to make it sound like I hated Tears. I liked it quite a bit. But I also have to wonder where they think they can take this formula from here on, when it feels like they've traded the franchise's identity - even if it was somewhat outdated - for open-world and mechanical building, both of which are fine, but is The Legend of Zelda going to revolve around building contraptions from now on? Or are they going to spend six years making a new Hyrule map equal to Tears's for every game?

Edited by RedSavant on Dec 20th 2023 at 11:45:01 PM

I know your last questions were likely rethorical, but they stated that the construction mechanics of TOTK won't return, nor will the current Hyrule map. So for the next 6 years they'll come up with something else and for a new world.

Maybe for the next game Link will be a professional wrecker and destroy everything he sees around.

But see, I think that just leaves me feeling uncertain. We're not getting item-based dungeons anymore and possibly not even thematic puzzle temples, so what is Zelda now? Are we really just going to have to wait and see how a "fantasy open world plus " game fares in 2030?

I think we'll see item-based dungeons in the next game. If the BOTW Hyrule isn't going to return, then there's little reason to prescind from items for a third time.

Personally I am thoroughly looking forward to a "post-BOTW" Zelda game. How is the game going to turn out when they build it from the ground up with its own identity but keeping all of the successes of BOTW and TOTK in mind? I want to see that! But of course it's going to be years before we see anything of it.

It about what's fun for the devs not just the fans and because of that the freedom of the open-world Zelda game gave them the most fun they had for a while now so those games are going to continue.

Re: Boat. Daphness was never really stuck in his boat form. You see him with his original body down in Old Hyrule, he just uses the boat as a medium to talk to you. I guess he can also steer it a little too.

Valid points being made on the topic of Boat-King. I guess, like, he is a ghost, while the boat is a physical object that, if I recall correctly, continues to exist after his spirit moves on. It isn't a ghost boat.

Maybe he had some connection to the boat while he was alive and that's why he's able to become its animating spirit? That feels like it would make sense.

TOTK might not have had item based dungeons, but they were all definitely themed around using the sages' abilities.

However, they have the same "one-trick pony" weakness as ALBW's dungeons: They center on one item/ability, one which is required to enter the dungeon in the first place, and no other.

As opposed to the other way you enter the dungeons...?

I think they mean the fact that every item in ALBW is only used in its corresponding dungeon (and a few optional caves) and used for the entire duration of the dungeon rather than as a turning point.

And that no other items are used. For example, the Hookshot was used in pretty much every OOT dungeon even though they had their own dungeon items as well.

I feel like Breath of the Wild could've done that...

The abilities there were "slightly" less free form.

I don't mind the slate/hand abilities, but especially in Tears, you can see how they struggled to make them relevant to combat. So in a way, I understand why they included all the pure physics puzzles in the shrines... but that leads back to the previous problem of how Breath and Tears are open-world adventure games that have discrete physics puzzles separate from their actual worlds. (Tears was better with this by including Korok transport and stuff.) So if the hand-type powers aren't going to be sticking around, they might need something else.

Honestly, I don't care if they go back to gating off certain regions like they did in previous games. I'm not going to be offended if I have to unlock the bomb slate power to progress to the Lake Hylia open-world area. Maybe I'm not the target audience, but I'd prefer smaller, more progress-curated areas, I think.

I feel like they could've given you one of the previous slate abilities instead of..."map".

You can already access the map with a single button, why does it need to be on the wheel?

That's useless.