That would make every single game in existance linear and not open if that's considered a block to exploration.
That's exactly my point, if we're saying that any content "locked" behind something like obtaining an item is linear storytelling (with which I can't disagree), then we are going to have to admit that there's a subjective line that separates linear from non-linear storytelling. I think we just fall on different sides of that subjective line: you believe that LoZ contained non-linear storytelling and I believe that LoZ contained linear storytelling.
Zelda 1 has a decent story. It's all written out in the printed instruction manual. It's not explained in game. Most people who didn't own the original NES cart have not read it. That's how quote a few NES games had their story protrayed to the public. Also it was a limitation of the tech of the day. Though not so in Zelda 1's case but that was a special case. Still that Zelda 1 mix up by the developers did allow 2nd quest to be a thing.
I would never disagree with this sentiment. LoZ had one of the most resonant and well-trodden stories in any media: you are the hero, adventure to save the princess from the great evil. It's a fantastic story, we need no more out of it at all, I wouldn't change a thing. The point I was making, which was unnecessary but may have been missed, is that there's very little story
there's very little story here
in LoZ. I respectfully admit it's merely my opinion that it's not much of a story and I see nothing wrong about you feeling that it is more of a story than I think it is.
You have to beat the 4 guardian beast bosses before you can fight ganon (either in the mechanical beasts or before ganon) and both are required to beat the game. That's also a block to finishing the game. No different to requiring the 8 triforce pieces to access Level-9 in Zelda 1. Both games do have a few requirements to access the end of the game but their overworld maps are both very open. You can explore almost anywhere from the start of the game. Well BotW has the Plateau which Zelda 1 does not. You can visit Death Mountain right away there. But past the Plateau (a good tutorial area) the rest of BotW is very open.
The difference in opinion here seems to be that I am looking at BotW in the context of being a game with a massive amount of content as opposed to LoZ being a game with a small amount of content yet both have comparable (although BotW may have even fewer) goals which must be accomplished in certain orders. If we are calling the four guardian beasts separate instances from the fight with Calamity Ganon, we've got to be calling each of the items required to get into LoZ levels and...I mean, completing each of the consecutively numbered levels in order to get the 8 triforce pieces within, not to mention the Silver Arrow, separate linear goals. The idea that the single set of encounters at the end of BotW and the Great Plateau (two goals by my SUBJECTIVE count) are equal to the 8 dungeons that must be traversed and six items that must be obtained to beat LoZ seems reasonable to me (even if it is 7 times fewer goals). But I am SUBJECTIVELY choosing to look at the games as wholes and when taking into consideration the amount of goals which are available in BotW, contrasted with the amount of goals available in LoZ, I see little comparison.
Today is not 1986 but Zelda 1 was released in 1986 so that needs to be taken into account. Breath of the Wild has tons of goals. Just most of them are optional with respect to the minimum required to finish the game. Also BotW is onw of those games where it is up to the player to choose their own goals, create their own fun within the game.
Absolutely agree, but my subjective opinion is that the fact that those hundreds of goals being available for tackling in any order is part of what makes the story less linear.
Huh? I think you are mixing up Zelda 1 and Ocarine of Time here. Ocarina of Time is very linear in many ways. Zelda 1 not so much.
I was referring three different Zelda games here, not just OoT. OoT had a very linear storyline imho, LoZ had a less linear storyline imho, and BotW had a FAR less linear storyline imho.
That has nothing to do with open words or non linear stories but I do agree with you that BotW has the most combat options of any Zelda game to date. One of the thnigs I really like about BotW
Out of context, it doesn't have anything to do with non-linear storytelling but in context, I was referring back to my point that every tiny step (tilting the thumb stick forward) can be mandatory in progressing the game. Yes, It's obfuscation, pure and simple, but I mean to show that we each draw our subjective conclusions as to what constitutes linear gameplay and what constitutes open world gameplay. I believe that the options for progressing the story in BotW are greater in number than the options for progressing the story in LoZ and I respect your right to the opinion that the opposite is true.
Perhaps the disharmony in our respective ideas was my fault as I lost track of the point of the post. See, I saw,
What part of BotW do you look at or do and say 'this is not Zelda'?
and read, "What things are new to the Zelda formula in BotW?" Of course, nothing about this game seems non-Zelda to me (I'm a little iffy about the Master Cycle). I merely think SUBJECTIVELY that BotW has a less linear storyline than any previous Zelda game, part of the inspiration for which definitely came from LoZ.