Zelda Tears of the Kingdom Thread

[Casual Shinji]

I'm starting to get into the swing of things and the enjoyment is finally kicking in. Fusing a weapon with a monster horn of some kind is surprisingly satisfying - it makes it so even the flimsiest of branches can become a solid club. And some of the powers can really offer some unforseen convenience; there was a little side quest that required me to transport something across a river for which I used one of those green gliders to drift across. I finish the side quest, but my horse (for which I hadn't found a stable to saddle it yet) was still on the other side of the river. And instead of trying to swim back or run all the way around to an available bridge, I use the rewind power on the glider to just go back the way I came in. Pretty nifty.

Also, the game is really wearing its Ghibli influences on its sleave this time. We have ancient technological islands in the sky, and the game starts with Link getting his arm infected while fighting evil, wormy tentacles. There's even a giant swirling cloud structure in the sky that's obviously hiding another island.

 

[CriticalGaming]

!? An open world, 3 independent storylines, and the ability to tackle things in your preferred order are massive changes, affecting the entire experience.

Every Pokemon has those independant storylines, you just tackle them linearly. The ability to tackle them in any order in S&V is meaningless because you have to do them all anyway. So it's basically being able to color outside the lines a little bit, but you still have to follow the same script. The open world is also pointless because zone's are still level based, so you can explore them however you want, but you have to grind linearly to get up to the level to fight anything there. Unless getting very lucky with a pokeball toss. The open world is a novelty but it's not practical in a standard gameplay curve.

You can, so long as you mention it in the same breath as COD, Battlefield, etc.

I'd gladly lump those in, I've acknowledged those games are the same shit different anus several times before.

You know what the problem is with you trying to point the finger at other game series is though? They all come from different companies. Yes, all CoD's are the same, but Activision also puts out other shit that's nothing like CoD too. And those games are all different. Same thing applied to any publisher except Nintendo. Splatoon was Nintendo's last new IP, and they're already milking the 3rd installment of it, it's a company that doesn't even try new shit because they have no reason too.

And I'm not saying that Nintendo games are bad, just that you don't miss anything if you skip a particular release.

 

[BrawlMan]

know what the problem is with you trying to point the finger at other game series is though? They all come from different companies. Yes, all CoD's are the same, but Activision also puts out other shit that's nothing like CoD too. And those games are all different. Same thing applied to any publisher except Nintendo. Splatoon was Nintendo's last new IP, and they're already milking the 3rd installment of it, it's a company that doesn't even try new shit because they have no reason too.

Big difference is that Activision doesn't even bother with any other shooters, but COD and Overwatch 2. Both are still shit. I know there are others franchises l, but output of quality and quantity is nowhere close to where they used to be.

And I'm not saying that Nintendo games are bad, just that you don't miss anything if you skip a particular release.

You're speaking yourself there. I'll gladly take whatever Nintendo's usually doing over Activision Blizzard. I don't like all Nintendo switch party stuff, but most of the games I find more interesting than whatever Call of Duty is coming out. I can miss something in comparison to that, or even without the comparison. You don't miss anything.

 

[CriticalGaming]

You're speaking yourself there. I'll gladly take whatever Nintendo's usually doing over Activision Blizzard. I don't like all Nintendo switch party stuff, but most of the games I find more interesting than whatever Call of Duty is coming out. I can miss something in comparison to that, or even without the comparison. You don't miss anything.

You're missing my point. I mean that if Smash Ultimate is the only smash I play, I didn't miss anything special by not playing the previous games.

I don't have to play Mario Kart 1-7 to enjoy 8.

Unlike with, using the God of War example, Ragnarok is probably a lot less interesting if you don't have the context from God of War 2018.

 

[BrawlMan]

You're missing my point. I mean that if Smash Ultimate is the only smash I play, I didn't miss anything special by not playing the previous games.

You missed all the special crossovers that happened in the Wii with Brawl, and Wii U version. Ultimate is just a better version of the Wii U game with more modes and even more crossovers! So in that one specific case, you and every smash or non-smash player got the bigger better deal. They were still a lot of build up to that, and there is something that will never ever be done again. Across over like that will never be that big and video games ever again. That's a lightning and a bottle like there! Be puper grateful you didn't miss out.

Unlike with, using the God of War example, Ragnarok is probably a lot less interesting if you don't have the context from God of War 2018.

The same thing can be said for God of War 4, if you started with that, but didn't play the Greek Trilogy of games, nor the PSP titles for full context. Santa Monica did their best to make God of War for newbie friendly, but there's still some story context missing, if you don't know what happened in the first game or will be lost on a new player.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

> On the other, you can build a mecha and fuck shit up.
So what I find interesting about this game is- yes, you can do that. But will you do that?

Like- I would never. I just do what needs to get done to finish a quest. I am so uncreative and boring. And I see people do cool shit like this and it's like- yeah, some games are better for me to watch than play.

And I just wonder what is the breakdown of folks playing to finish it, playing to just play some of it whatever, and playing to just mess around like this and treat it like a Minecraft.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The same thing can be said for God of War 4, if you started with that, but didn't play the Greek Trilogy of games, nor the PSP titles for full context. Santa Monica did their best to make God of War for newbie friendly, but there's still some story context missing, if you don't know what happened in the first game or will be lost on a new player.

That context is very minor though.

Meanwhile Mario has no context. You won't be playing Odyssey wondering how Mario saved Peach the last 17 times, nor would you be wondering who the dragon is and why he wants to marry a popsicle stick.

 

[Silvanus]

Every Pokemon has those independant storylines, you just tackle them linearly.

Then they ain't independent. And no game before S&V had an equivalent to the Arven/Titans one.

The ability to tackle them in any order in S&V is meaningless because you have to do them all anyway. So it's basically being able to color outside the lines a little bit, but you still have to follow the same script. The open world is also pointless because zone's are still level based, so you can explore them however you want, but you have to grind linearly to get up to the level to fight anything there. Unless getting very lucky with a pokeball toss. The open world is a novelty but it's not practical in a standard gameplay curve.

No, it clearly gives you much wider options. You can go in a half dozen different directions at any given time without needing to grind or get lucky; just avoid the biggest stuff and you'll mostly be fine. You're exaggerating the restriction.

I'd gladly lump those in, I've acknowledged those games are the same shit different anus several times before.

So long as we're on the same page that it's not unique or special to Nintendo.

You know what the problem is with you trying to point the finger at other game series is though? They all come from different companies. Yes, all CoD's are the same, but Activision also puts out other shit that's nothing like CoD too. And those games are all different. Same thing applied to any publisher except Nintendo. Splatoon was Nintendo's last new IP, and they're already milking the 3rd installment of it, it's a company that doesn't even try new shit because they have no reason too.

This is a very muddled argument. You seem to now be talking about Nintendo not producing new IPs, which is an entirely different argument from a lack of differentiation between installments within a single IP.

Saying those companies also produce different stuff is irrelevant when we're specifically talking about levels of differentiation between installments within an IP.

(And while we're here, Pokemon is a second-party title; it's substantially not developed by the same company as Zelda and Mario).

And I'm not saying that Nintendo games are bad, just that you don't miss anything if you skip a particular release.

So you reckon if you skip Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, and play Twilight Princess, then you've essentially had the same experience?

That's ridiculous. There's more differentiation between those three Zelda titles than there is between installments in most other franchises.

 

[Silvanus]

Meanwhile Mario has no context. You won't be playing Odyssey wondering how Mario saved Peach the last 17 times, nor would you be wondering who the dragon is and why he wants to marry a popsicle stick.

You're a big vocal fan of a series in which every numbered installment takes place in an entirely separate universe, where the storyline context of the previous dozen are entirely unnecessary.

 

[CriticalGaming]

You're a big vocal fan of a series in which every numbered installment takes place in an entirely separate universe, where the storyline context of the previous dozen are entirely unnecessary.

Yes I am a fan of a series that is dramatically different everytime. That's kind of my point.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It happens often, but "never changing the character dynamic" is patently untrue. Zelda, under an assumed identity, is off journeying as a pirate for the majority of Wind Waker. She's not even present in Majora's Mask. Hell, even in OoT she escapes Ganon without Link's help, and is off being a Ninja for about 60% of the game-- she only requires saving by the protag at the end of the end. Ganon isn't present in Minish Cap, Majora's Mask, Four Swords, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, or Skyward Sword. And he's barely present (and not the primary antagonist) in OoA, OoS, and ALBW.

Sure, but eventually it returns to the same dynamic; Link is the hero, Zelda is the princess, and Ganon is the villain. It's even part of the lore that they're stuck in these roles. Which can be interesting to explore, but this is only ever done slightly, never to actually shake things up. It's set in stone. And we'll likely never get a (mainline) game where we actually get to play Zelda, or a new character all together. With how much of a non-character Link was in BotW (and seemingly in Tears of the Kingdom), this could've been a great oppertunity to create your own character. Someone who lives in a hicks-ville town on the Great Plateau and finds Links remains along with the sheika slate, and they become the hero. In essence it's no different from how Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are set up.

But Nintendo would never dare actually change this. And so far fans have never balked at the overuse of Link in these games, or Zelda and Ganon for that matter. So this is mainly a 'me' thing - I would like things to change with these characters. Not just 'Look, Ganon looks sexy now. Done.'

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom Ultrahand ability has birthed some wild creations

Link is making his merry way through Hyrule's many regions and camps in a range of eclectic creations, from mechs to trucks and tanks.

www.eurogamer.net

The fluff text ain't necessary so am just linking the visa.

With this and the upcoming Lego car building sandbox game lately has kinda vindicated the lost cause of defending Nuts n Bolts: Banjo Kazooies back in the day. The world just wasn't ready for it then!

 

[CriticalGaming]

So i wanna beat Gannon with a giant Dildo. I guess I'm buying this game. RIP.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes I am a fan of a series that is dramatically different everytime. That's kind of my point.

This is a distinct argument from the "context is unnecessary" one. Is it a drawback that context of past games is unnecessary, or not? Final Fantasy would suggest it isn't.

 

[BrawlMan]

That context is very minor though

Kratos seeing/hallucinating Athena, and later seeing his own murdering hands of Zeus (his father), with Atreus possibly witnessing it in Helhiem, I would not call minor.

Meanwhile Mario has no context. You won't be playing Odyssey wondering how Mario saved Peach the last 17 times, nor would you be wondering who the dragon is and why he wants to marry a popsicle stick.

The same thing applies for every Final Fantasy, not counting their spin-off/sequels.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom Ultrahand ability has birthed some wild creations

Link is making his merry way through Hyrule's many regions and camps in a range of eclectic creations, from mechs to trucks and tanks.

www.eurogamer.net

The fluff text ain't necessary so am just linking the visa.


With this and the upcoming Lego car building sandbox game lately has kinda vindicated the lost cause of defending Nuts n Bolts: Banjo Kazooies back in the day. The world just wasn't ready for it then!

This is a perfect example of how allowing creative freedom in a game basically ruins all sense of any journey the game can have. The moment your tools allow the player to build freely, the players will eliminate any sense of whatever intended journey the game was supposed to have. You even see it in the replies and the tweets themselves. At some point it's not even a Zelda game, it's a build-a-blocks game with a Zelda skin.

I can quite imagine how much being able to make a big dick just beat all the bosses for you might be a lot of fun for some players, but for others it destroys what they come to a Zelda game for. I don't personally give a shit, as I've already gone over the repetitiveness of these series and how I don't like them, but other people clearly do and I can see how that experience can be ruined.

Although given the weapon durability thing, I can see how creating a cockbat is just a better option. Who needs weapons when you can just make them on your own?

 

[Silvanus]

Sure, but eventually it returns to the same dynamic; Link is the hero, Zelda is the princess, and Ganon is the villain.

Its a bit much to say they're all the same if they eventually go back to the old plot in later installments, even if they have numerous installments that don't follow it.

It's even part of the lore that they're stuck in these roles. Which can be interesting to explore, but this is only ever done slightly, never to actually shake things up. It's set in stone.

But we've got seven examples that don't follow that, so the "never" is already shot.

And we'll likely never get a (mainline) game where we actually get to play Zelda, or a new character all together. With how much of a non-character Link was in BotW (and seemingly in Tears of the Kingdom), this could've been a great oppertunity to create your own character. Someone who lives in a hicks-ville town on the Great Plateau and finds Links remains along with the sheika slate, and they become the hero. In essence it's no different from how Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are set up.

Right, but those games are all tonally and mechanically very different.

But Nintendo would never dare actually change this. And so far fans have never balked at the overuse of Link in these games, or Zelda and Ganon for that matter. So this is mainly a 'me' thing - I would like things to change with these characters. Not just 'Look, Ganon looks sexy now. Done.'

I'm a Zelda fan, and I'd love to have a playable Link, or more variation. Plenty of Zelda fans want and talk about this. My objection is how these similarities or themes get exaggerated to make spurious arguments about how the games never innovate, or do so less than other series. That's categorically untrue.

 

[Silvanus]

At some point it's not even a Zelda game, it's a build-a-blocks game with a Zelda skin.

Oh come on now! You can have "they don't change anything ever SMH", or you can have "they changed this thing so its not even Zelda any more SMH", but you can't have both!

 

[CriticalGaming]

This is a distinct argument from the "context is unnecessary" one. Is it a drawback that context of past games is unnecessary, or not? Final Fantasy would suggest it isn't.

I didn't say it was a drawback, I said it makes each entry in a given franchise skippable. Which does apply to Final Fantasy. You absolutely can play FFX without touching any other game.

However the difference between something like Zelda and Final Fantasy, is that Final Fantasy plays differently every time. Each battle system does something different, upgrades are different, there are changes in the gameplay from entry to entry, which I just don't see in Zelda games. Link always fights with a melee weapon with a series of tools for whatever puzzle. The core mechanics of how combat goes, are the same. Has Link ever been a Wizard? A summoner (well I guess now with dick robots)? Not to mention the characters are always different, new villains, new side characters.

I am not saying either thing is bad. I'm just saying why I don't like one example over the other. If you love these things then great.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Oh come on now! You can have "they don't change anything ever SMH", or you can have "they changed this thing so its not even Zelda any more SMH", but you can't have both!

I didn't say it currently wasn't. I was just pointing out that their biggest addition to this particular game, isn't related to the game that it's supposed to be. Again you are really really missing my argument.