Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Unpopular Zelda Opinions
    • Please Understand wrote:

      A hookshot type rune was considered but they decided to opt against it because it didn't fit the game's design. After finishing the game, I cannot say a hookshot would be justified by the content. However, the same could be said for Cryonis - it had some very cool uses, but it was really way too niche. Maybe they should have made it a bit more versatile and not only work on water, or work in a different way.
      You use the Cryonis in a couple of those fighting shrines (or at least had the option to do so), it would have been cool to have some places where you cold utilize it in a similar manner in the overworld.
      I've found one Korok puzzle that required the Cryonis climbing a waterfall at least. (transporting a magnetic cube)
    • Octorocker wrote:

      I imagine you're one of the people that complains about weapons breaking too frequently as well? You know, the games way of forcing you to experiment and not make things so repetitive.
      Yeah I've trashed the weapon durability aspect.

      Mirren wrote:

      Mirren wrote:

      I quite like the weapon durability aspect; it just needs a tweak or two.


      Please Understand wrote:

      Mirren wrote:

      You know what other, better games did that Breath of the Wild didn't? They gave you enemy variety and diversity in action sequences without forcing you to make your own, extremely obtuse, 'diversity' through tedious methods.
      You don't need to go out of your way in BotW though? Fun encounters occur naturally as well. Also, the enemy AI behaviour is more fleshed out than 99% of the games out there. It might not have as many actions as a character in a fighting game, but they sure as hell have more actions than other open world games, and that's good enough for me, because that's what BotW is, lol.
      Fun encounters certainly do occur, but not with the frequency and with the level of entertainment that they could have once you've dived a fair way into the game. Once you hit your second boss, you know almost exactly what's in store for you for the others.

      The bosses suffered the worst, of course, but the grunt enemies and minibosses took this issue on the chin, too. Aside from Lynels, none of them have so many different attacks and fighting styles that each one presents a dramatically different offense to you (and, yes, the battles with Lynels start to blur after your first couple). A Talus is a Talus. A Hinox is a Hinox. Better AI doesn't amount to the same wrinkles as you would get from a wider selection of enemies like you'd find in a Witcher 3, Twilight Princess, etc.

      A brand new enemy will always be more distinct than a palette swap.

      You're not going to get anything wildly different from your 15th encounter with a Moblin than you would have from your 10th. Same with a Guardian Stalker. Same with a Guardian Scout. Or a flying Guardian. At a certain point, this also begins to hamper the difficulty, because there's nothing left to surprise you or take your off guard.
    • I completely agree. Don't get me wrong guys, BotW is a GREAT game. It just isn't a very good ZELDA game. It felt more like Nintendo was trying to mimic Skyrim. Heck Nintendo THEMSELVES compared the game to Skyrim many many times when talking about the game in different pre release videos. All this said, I really did enjoy BotW even if I didn't like what the game itself represented as a whole.
    • PKMN03 wrote:

      I completely agree. Don't get me wrong guys, BotW is a GREAT game. It just isn't a very good ZELDA game. It felt more like Nintendo was trying to mimic Skyrim. Heck Nintendo THEMSELVES compared the game to Skyrim many many times when talking about the game in different pre release videos. All this said, I really did enjoy BotW even if I didn't like what the game itself represented as a whole.
      If by ZELDA game you mean the last 17 years of Zelda, I would agree.

      If you compare it to the old NES games, I'd say it feels much more like a Zelda game than any other modern iteration
    • Massively Unpopular Opinion :

      Ocarina of Time almost drove Zelda into mediocrity after it's success.

      Ocarina was a success when it came out. It was innovative and it was 3D. Unfortunately, it is also something that due to it's very success, made the devs rehash it's gameplay and story formula in subsequent games to the point they ended up feeling like near clones of each other. It also seemed to compel the devs to make each Link's story thereafter (and even retroactively in some cases) be about hearing about and emulating this one Hero of Time, yet rarely (or barely at all) are any other Link's achievements mentioned.

      Some people might disagree about this, but Ocarina was so good at what it did, that the devs (and lots of hardcore fans) refused to move on from it. Zelda started to slowly stagnate, many gamers slowly grew bored of the repetitiousness and slowly drifted into other things, while the devs vainly hoped that each subsequent OoT-emulating games would 'be the one' to recapture that old OoT magic.

      Only they don't. And really should stop trying. It wasn't that OoT was bad, but the devs rode on it's coattails far too long, to the point the games afterward started to suffer from it. No longer taking risks, they remained marooned in the 90's, barely moving forward nor wanting to acknowledge that gamers grow up. I would also even say that this hurt OoT too. In trying to make each game like it, and in failing to move on from it, the devs almost entirely robbed it of it's uniqueness. No longer is it a standalone with it's own plots and puzzles, but template for a bunch of clones that endlessly reference it to death.*

      *That is, until BOTW. It appears to be moving away from OoT for the most part, and may be the nucleus for a new set of games, so we'll see how that goes.
      Rymes with 'Achoo.'

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Aku ().

    • Metalwolf wrote:

      Massively Unpopular Opinion :

      Ocarina of Time almost drove Zelda into mediocrity after it's success.
      This isnt a unpopular opinion tbh. Most agree that Nintendo have rehashed Ocarina of Time's gameplay structure for way too long. I feel they really misunderstood the reason for that game's success.

      They thought it was the puzzle elements of Aonumas dungeons that made the game so popular. It really wasnt.
    • Thornquist wrote:

      Metalwolf wrote:

      Massively Unpopular Opinion :

      Ocarina of Time almost drove Zelda into mediocrity after it's success.
      This isnt a unpopular opinion tbh. Most agree that Nintendo have rehashed Ocarina of Time's gameplay structure for way too long. I feel they really misunderstood the reason for that game's success.
      They thought it was the puzzle elements of Aonumas dungeons that made the game so popular. It really wasnt.
      Well, in truth I only assumed it would be unpopular because I had seen some people previously stating they wanted more games based off of the Ocarina formula, or getting their hackles up at any criticism of OoT. I think a lot of it is because of nostalgia, and maybe because keeping stuff like Ocarina meant that something of their childhood could stay just that little bit more longer.

      For the most part I think it's safe to say Nintendo will be setting it's sights on BOTW and the stuff after it now, given it's huge success and past Aonuma quotes with him saying this is a new series. I'm just hoping that Aonuma and co. don't forget the lesson they learned from OoT, and continue to evolve the gameplay and stuff we see in Hyrule.
    • Mirren wrote:

      If this is all true, isn't it actually A Link to the Past that garnered imitation until it became a problem? That game set the structure which Ocarina of Time and many other 3D titles would follow, just in a 2D setting.
      Debatable. The dungeon structure in A Link to the Past isnt really puzzle focused. Atleast not in the degree we see with Aonuma dungeons, and I would argue that the game is still squarely action focused in its core. The first time we see the heavy puzzle focus was with OoT, and it was still subdued (since Aonuma only worked on dungeons, I assume).

      Octorocker wrote:

      He's been both. If it makes you feel better pretend I said producer instead.
      Nintendo is very loose with their titles. While Aonuma has a more hands-off approach these days, he is still very much a part of the overall design, and adds his own touches - gathering memories in BotW was his idea, for example.

      Everybody still bows to the whim of Miyamoto though.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Thornquist ().

    • I completely disagree with the idea that post-OoT games are just clones of eachother. If anything, I'd say that the problem with Zelda post-OoT is that it tried to change too much without trying to keep and improve what worked. I mean, if you want to believe that the extremely arbitrary formula of "solve dungeons > acquire sword > solve more dungeons > kill boss" is somehow the entire basis of the design of the series, then sure, all the games are the same. But that "formula" is kind of irrelevant in the end to be honest. MM is nothing like OoT in terms of structure. Neither is TWW. Or SS. None of the handheld games are even close to it. And sure, TP tried to imitate OoT, but it's still one out of something like, three hundred thousand games. Most of them have a different structure. Most of them do something different with the overworld. Most of them try out new mechanics. If all the games were OoT clones, I wouldn't be hearing talk about the series moving away from what once made it great, because that would be completely contradictory.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Khao ().

    • Khao wrote:


      MM is nothing like OoT in terms of structure. Neither is TWW. Or SS. None of the handheld games are even close to it.

      SS and WW were each actually pretty close in terms of pure structure.


      If all the games were OoT clones, I wouldn't be hearing talk about the series moving away from what once made it great, because that would be completely contradictory.

      To be fair, it wouldn't be contradictory because those are the views of two different sides of the fanbase.