Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa has explained to Japanese magazine Famitsu that video game development will become even longer, more complex, and more sophisticated in the future and that mergers…
Which is hilarious because TotK completely broke “canon” by having NPCs completely not mention events from the previous game. Nintendo is really weird about things sometimes.
Players have remarked in some cases on the lack of in-universe explanations for some of the changes to Hyrule. Notably that the Sheikah Towers and Guardians which were a central part of the Breath Of The Wild have disappeared entirely. Nintendo has its own internal explanations about what happened: “They disappeared after the Calamity was defeated (sealed),” Fujibayashi explains. “All of the people of Hyrule also witnessed this, but there is no one who knows the mechanism or reason why they disappeared, and it is considered a mystery. It is believed that since the Calamity disappeared, they also disappeared as their role had been fulfilled.
“It is, anyway, commonplace for mysterious events and strange phenomena to occur in Hyrule,” he offers, mischievously. “Thus, people have simply assumed the reason behind the disappearance to likely be related to ancient Sheikah technology and it seems there is no one who has tried to explore the matter further. The main civilizations in Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom are completely different, so we thought about the game based on concepts that match each of these civilizations.” The short answer? Don’t worry about it.
Honestly, I don’t understand why people care so much about non-linearity. My favorite Zelda games are completely linear: A Link to the Past, Skyward Sword, Link’s Awakening. I did OoT linearly as well, because that made sense to me. Yeah, it’s cool when you can do things “out of order,” but there should absolutely be an intended order so things are interesting (no difficulty spikes, interesting use of items, etc), perhaps with some easter eggs if you hack around it. I think that’s what fans wanted. BotW loses that, and the result is that you don’t really have much interesting interaction between set pieces.
Then again, BotW and TotK were super successful, probably because they attracted a ton of people who don’t normally like Zelda games, because it’s not really a Zelda game, it’s a Zelda-themed game. BotW feels more like *Assassin’s Creed: Australia edition" than a Zelda game (lots of nothing, find random stuff, then fight a random, same-y boss; continue until a big, disappointing fight).
I usually feel accomplished after finishing a Zelda game, but getting to Ganon was harder than the actual fight, I didn’t need to use any of my abilities, and the second phase was laughably easier than the first, so I largely left disappointed. It’s like they tossed it in last-minute and shipped it, instead of giving actual thought to it. When people ask me what they need to prepare for the Ganon fight, I just say, “lots of shields.” That’s it.
A Link to the Past is not completely linear; once you have the hammer from the Palace of Darkness, you can choose between the Swamp Palace, Skull Woods or Thieves’ Town, and Thieves’ Town unlocks the Ice Palace and Misery Mire. Granted, the game tells you what order to do them in, but you are occasionally free to choose otherwise. Not so in, say, Twilight Princess, which is extremely flaggy.
I do think that TotK was very sloppily handled. On the one hand it’s an amazing piece of software, that the physics systems they made actually…work. I’ve seen them take flak for re-using BotW’s map, which I don’t mind. The thing is, they did it very hamfistedly. In BotW, it makes sense that no one knows who you are because you’ve been in stasis for 100 years, there’s only a handful of people alive who recognize you. In BotW, you’re an interloper. TotK seems to take place 6 years after BotW (Given how some of the children like Nebb and Riju have aged, Bolson/Rhondson having a ~5 year old daughter, etc, plus that’s the time between the games’ release dates) and Link has been living and working in Hyrule this whole time…except he apparently hasn’t. Zelda seems to have appropriated the house in Hateno Link bought, so where does Link live? Too many people outright don’t recognize him when they see him. It feels like they wanted to make a clean-sheet game and not a sequel.
Frankly it also feels like any idea anyone came up with ended up in the game. “Let’s have a cavernous underground.” Okay, the lazy way to make that is to invert the terrain map of the surface which doesn’t make logical sense, and then do extremely little with this very large environment. “Let’s have islands in the sky.” Okay, here’s some cookie cutter islands floating in the sky that are difficult to reach and traverse with large expanses of emptiness and the ability to make flying machines that don’t last long enough to actually move around. “How about a sidequest where an NPC asks Link to put some wheels on a cart for her? I’ve already written 90 pages of related dialog.” Yes, put it in the game completely unedited.
A Link to the Past is not completely linear; once you have the hammer from the Palace of Darkness, you can choose between…
The thing is that by the time you reach they point youbahve done the tutorial zones in the normal world and you have explored some of the “sacred land”, plus you should already be hooked into the story. BotW and TotK both give you a short introduction and then it’s all pepega, it really feels like you have less direction than in skyrim.
Also, this is something that TotK did better than BotW, kinda. They tell you about the final enemy right from the beginning, there’s no mystery element for the player character, whereas in a link to the past or skyward sword the pc really doesn’t know what’s happening, you just know that there’d something wrong.
In a sense, in BotW there’s no from 0 to hero feeling, you are the hero, not just someone that raises up to the task, but someone that did raise, failed, and is expected to do so again. To me, it feels like the post-game of a better game and that’s bad.
In TotK there’s some sense of mystery since the story begins with you trying to search Zelda, not knowing what happened to the castle. In the end we just fix 4 things in 4 places to get stronger but that again feels like a side quest you do while searching for Zelda, that’s the initial quest and the one I cared for the most when I found out. It still feels like post-gameish because you have a super sense of urgency for Zelda, and there’s 4 places where they saw her and once you go they have issues that you don’t have the fucking time to solve where the fuck is Zelda but you have to do them I guess.
My issue in both games is that you have a big sense of urgency due to the dangers ahead being very real and very in your face, but then there’s tons of stupid content and side quests of people that don’t give two shits about your quest. Yeah let’s collect horses while Zelda has been 200 years being tortured in pain to contain the big bad, no big deal.
I as a player know stuff is boing on because it’s a TLoZ game, but I like the PC being in the dark about that stuff so I don’t feel bad for not fixing the world asap.
Which is hilarious because TotK completely broke “canon” by having NPCs completely not mention events from the previous game. Nintendo is really weird about things sometimes.
TL;DR - lol
Source:
Honestly, I don’t understand why people care so much about non-linearity. My favorite Zelda games are completely linear: A Link to the Past, Skyward Sword, Link’s Awakening. I did OoT linearly as well, because that made sense to me. Yeah, it’s cool when you can do things “out of order,” but there should absolutely be an intended order so things are interesting (no difficulty spikes, interesting use of items, etc), perhaps with some easter eggs if you hack around it. I think that’s what fans wanted. BotW loses that, and the result is that you don’t really have much interesting interaction between set pieces.
Then again, BotW and TotK were super successful, probably because they attracted a ton of people who don’t normally like Zelda games, because it’s not really a Zelda game, it’s a Zelda-themed game. BotW feels more like *Assassin’s Creed: Australia edition" than a Zelda game (lots of nothing, find random stuff, then fight a random, same-y boss; continue until a big, disappointing fight).
I usually feel accomplished after finishing a Zelda game, but getting to Ganon was harder than the actual fight, I didn’t need to use any of my abilities, and the second phase was laughably easier than the first, so I largely left disappointed. It’s like they tossed it in last-minute and shipped it, instead of giving actual thought to it. When people ask me what they need to prepare for the Ganon fight, I just say, “lots of shields.” That’s it.
A Link to the Past is not completely linear; once you have the hammer from the Palace of Darkness, you can choose between the Swamp Palace, Skull Woods or Thieves’ Town, and Thieves’ Town unlocks the Ice Palace and Misery Mire. Granted, the game tells you what order to do them in, but you are occasionally free to choose otherwise. Not so in, say, Twilight Princess, which is extremely flaggy.
I do think that TotK was very sloppily handled. On the one hand it’s an amazing piece of software, that the physics systems they made actually…work. I’ve seen them take flak for re-using BotW’s map, which I don’t mind. The thing is, they did it very hamfistedly. In BotW, it makes sense that no one knows who you are because you’ve been in stasis for 100 years, there’s only a handful of people alive who recognize you. In BotW, you’re an interloper. TotK seems to take place 6 years after BotW (Given how some of the children like Nebb and Riju have aged, Bolson/Rhondson having a ~5 year old daughter, etc, plus that’s the time between the games’ release dates) and Link has been living and working in Hyrule this whole time…except he apparently hasn’t. Zelda seems to have appropriated the house in Hateno Link bought, so where does Link live? Too many people outright don’t recognize him when they see him. It feels like they wanted to make a clean-sheet game and not a sequel.
Frankly it also feels like any idea anyone came up with ended up in the game. “Let’s have a cavernous underground.” Okay, the lazy way to make that is to invert the terrain map of the surface which doesn’t make logical sense, and then do extremely little with this very large environment. “Let’s have islands in the sky.” Okay, here’s some cookie cutter islands floating in the sky that are difficult to reach and traverse with large expanses of emptiness and the ability to make flying machines that don’t last long enough to actually move around. “How about a sidequest where an NPC asks Link to put some wheels on a cart for her? I’ve already written 90 pages of related dialog.” Yes, put it in the game completely unedited.
The thing is that by the time you reach they point youbahve done the tutorial zones in the normal world and you have explored some of the “sacred land”, plus you should already be hooked into the story. BotW and TotK both give you a short introduction and then it’s all pepega, it really feels like you have less direction than in skyrim.
Also, this is something that TotK did better than BotW, kinda. They tell you about the final enemy right from the beginning, there’s no mystery element for the player character, whereas in a link to the past or skyward sword the pc really doesn’t know what’s happening, you just know that there’d something wrong.
In a sense, in BotW there’s no from 0 to hero feeling, you are the hero, not just someone that raises up to the task, but someone that did raise, failed, and is expected to do so again. To me, it feels like the post-game of a better game and that’s bad.
In TotK there’s some sense of mystery since the story begins with you trying to search Zelda, not knowing what happened to the castle. In the end we just fix 4 things in 4 places to get stronger but that again feels like a side quest you do while searching for Zelda, that’s the initial quest and the one I cared for the most when I found out. It still feels like post-gameish because you have a super sense of urgency for Zelda, and there’s 4 places where they saw her and once you go they have issues that you don’t have the fucking time to solve where the fuck is Zelda but you have to do them I guess.
My issue in both games is that you have a big sense of urgency due to the dangers ahead being very real and very in your face, but then there’s tons of stupid content and side quests of people that don’t give two shits about your quest. Yeah let’s collect horses while Zelda has been 200 years being tortured in pain to contain the big bad, no big deal.
I as a player know stuff is boing on because it’s a TLoZ game, but I like the PC being in the dark about that stuff so I don’t feel bad for not fixing the world asap.