I'm one of the increasingly rare cases who respects the creator more than the ip. This the foremost reason I'm a lifelong Star Wars devotee who admits that Star Wars ended in 2012 when the creator of the mythos cut ties with it. Miyamoto (and Aonuma under his supervision) can do whatever they want with Zelda and they certainly shouldn't give less of a crap what I think about it, but I have my opinions on it. I love BotW, it was a fantastically fun and fresh departure for the Zelda series and I also hope it doesn't become the norm for the franchise. Fingers crossed Aonuma's lying and we get a trio of experimental Zelda games next: the turn-based tactical RPG, the era-without-a-hero RTS, and the long-awaited Mystical Seed of Courage point-and-click visual novel accompanied by a 1200 page choose-your-own-adventure hard-cover.Majora's Mask had a limited time schedule to be produced on the Zelda 64 engine, same engine with Ocarina of time. TotK maybe didn't have that much of the time restriction but that's why these games look identical to each other.
The concept is the same "You have X time to make a game with the same assets that looks different than the previous entry".(Shigeru Miyamoto to Yoshiaki Koizumi) Can't blame BotW for what it is. It was the test bed for Nintendo Switch. Miyamoto did it once and can do it twice. Actually he can draw the master sword out of a pedastal if he wants. He can hire Koji Kondo or Metallica. It's his game. He even completed it 20 times and we are still here fighting about it.
You’re right, it isn’t vague. There are plenty of games where your progression isn’t tied to the level design itself, even at the time. Mario, Metroid, and Zelda all follow this.Because "progressing through a clearly defined world" isn't the most vague and generic description that can be applied to pretty much any video game ever... That doesn't tell me anything about the game in question. Are you talking about Mario? Metroid? Zelda?
Exploration is just as much of a thing in Mario as it is in Zelda. The only difference is that Mario is level based and Zelda isn’t. You still have to learn the world around you to better your own understanding of the game. The simple fact that any item whatsoever is required means that there is a correct way to progress.Exploration is literally at the core of the experience and separates it from a game like Super Mario Bros. that has one clearly defined path to the end of the level whereas Zelda does not. There is no "correct" way and that's literally the point. The game isn't guiding you to any specific destination and telling you where to go next.
Oh, so you’re saying that LttP and OoT are more similar to Z1 than BotW? I mean those games do everything you said Zelda 1 does far more than BotW.It has everything to do with it. People get lost, don't know where to go, how to progress and therefore later installments became more structured with obvious solutions. Also, having specific blocks in progression doesn't negate its non-linear design and gameplay, otherwise you couldn't do dungeons or obtain items out of order and attempt a 3 heart or swordless run. That's called player freedom and whether you like it or not, it's a defining characteristic of The Legend of Zelda.
It does. You said that it shifted from Zelda 1, and I pointed out that BotW does absolutely nothing to shift it back and instead removes what actually connected SS to Zelda 1. It doesn’t matter how anyone reads what you said, that’s the fact of the matter.It doesn't at all if you actually read what I wrote and didn't separate my paragraphs into 2 different thoughts just to project more anti-BotW rhetoric.
The fact that you used the word “formula” in a way that suggests that these things were invented after Zelda 1, as well as the fact that you ignored how structured Zelda 1 already was.As a direct result of The Legend of Zelda's difficulty, later games became more structured and easier to progress through, therefore making the series more accessible. In what way does this imply that aspects of Zelda 1 weren't carried over to future installments or even Breath of the Wild?
It has to do with you pretending that the “arbitrary” conventions that have defined the series are somehow what was holding it back, when in reality most of those conventions were what made it so great to begin with.News flash: WTF does this have to do with anything?
Literally not a single one of its ideas can be traced back to a previous title apart from minor side mechanics being carried over from SS. That’s literally not evolution. The simple fact that you insist that the series had somehow been “doing the same thing over and over again” proves that you have no idea what you’re talking about.The fact that Breath of the Wild's ideas can be traced back to prior games yet feel like such a deviation for how it repurposes those concepts is the definition of evolution. Not doing the same thing over and over again.
When did I say people were complaining about crafting?
Right here.But of course, that will be breaking a long established convention that matters so much for some reason.
And your blind worship of BotW has allowed you to conveniently ignore the fact that the series hadn’t been doing the same thing and this rework existed long before BotW. Hell, it even reverted other reworks that previous games did. SS changed a ton about the series that BotW just ignored, but somehow BotW is the “genre defining masterpiece” even though close to everything that it did has been done better in other games that released before it, both in and out of the Zelda series. Even the reworks that did exist in BotW could have easily been done without completely removing the core mechanic of the series.Again, you completely miss the point that’s being made because you'd rather attack Breath of the Wild any chance you can than understand why things are being said. I give an example of a series convention that was reworked into something completely brand new and could have benefited the series earlier had they not just been doing the same thing and your response is that Breath of the Wild has an empty world too and that crafting isn't the issue people have?
If it just evolved those concepts I wouldn’t be saying that. It didn’t evolve those concepts, it removed them. That’s not the same thing. BotW was quite objectively a complete genre shift. The fact that you insist that it evolved the concepts in any way just says that no, you haven’t acknowledged why people don’t like it.You don't need to tell me what people don't like about Breath of the Wild or how it's different from past entries. I've already acknowledged that. But to suggest Breath of the Wild isn't a real Zelda game just because it evolved those concepts is flat out ignorant.
There are plenty of ways to go about game design. Zelda 1 deliberately chose its own and evolved that until BotW decided to completely ditch the series identity. That’s literally not evolution by any definition whatsoever.Because concepts are vague and there is no one way to realize them like you seem to think. You talked about evolving the series yet are actively against it because you want to put Zelda in this restrictive box,
I haven’t misrepresented a thing, and you’ve pretty clearly agrued that the item based progression wasn’t a focal point just by insisting that BotW was somehow more similar to Z1 than SS. I literally never said that Zelda 1 only had one path. I said it had an intended path and various occasional restrictions to keep you on that path. Yes, the dungeon numbers, raft, and other aspects of the game absolutely prove this, and none of them were in BotW.so much that you blatantly misrepresent the point of the original Zelda game and think you've made some sort of revelation over lock and key design, which I've never argued wasn't part of its identity. All you've done is demonstrate that you don't understand game design since you're so adamant that Zelda 1 has only one path because what, the dungeons are numbered and you need a raft? Please...
Games are restrictive by nature. Attempting to make a game with as few restrictions as possible tends to lead to nothing but problems. You can do it well, but you have to be careful. Blindly implementing non-restrictive elements like BotW and TotK did just causes problems.Even though I dislike this change, as I it saddens me that they’ll continue the BotW format, what does this mean?
BotW and TotK are just as much of video games as every other Zelda game
Mark rosewater classifies this as an activity as per his article hereAttempting to make a game with as few restrictions as possible tends to lead to nothing but problems.
Even without that definition, that’s a pretty basic rule of game design. Like, a college level game design 101 textbook rule. You don’t have to follow these rules, but the games that successfully deviate from them only do so because they have a method of working around the complications that arise because of it. Neither BotW nor TotK even attempt to do do.Mark rosewater classifies this as an activity as per his article here
He states, "Games are about obstacles. The players have a goal, but something keeps them from simply accomplishing it. A game needs to have some challenge to it because the fun of a game comes from figuring out how to overcome those challenges."
It's his own definition of course and not one that everyone needs to follow, but I do like that it puts emphasis on requiring some type of obstacle or restriction to be satisfying. And given Maro's pedigree I'm inclined to value his opinions
It’s certainly better in this regard, but I still don’t think it goes far enough. If the mechanics were more strictly defined as to what will work and what won’t then I would feel better about it.Botw absolutely doesn't, to the point where it was a Hyrule Sandbox and not a true game. Tears does do more to restrict you in some areas, especially in the underground, and to that end I am comfortable calling tears a game whereas I wouldn't botw