Zelda Tears of the Kingdom Thread

[Casual Shinji]

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.

The games innovate, the games innovate plenty. That's typically THE Nintendo thing, and sometimes to a fault. Where they won't make a new entry to a well loved franchise unless it has a new way of playing it. But character wise you can't deny there's not much to sink your teeth in. Again, these characters are more mascot than character now. Similar to superheroes in that sense, and why I tend to not care too much about them.

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

Yeah, but those are generally the side games, which are given a bit more leeway to deviate.

 

[sXeth]

Zelda is at 26(?) games now, so if they did have a more ongoing story with the same characters it'd probably be getting pretty stale by now too.

Most franchises with that amount of stuff hop protagonists every other game or so. Like there's 40 whatever Resident Evil games (which is lunacy) but the main character isn't always the same.

Dunno about TotK, but it was odd that in dropping almost every other aspect of the series, BotW still felt compelled to fall back on to "go to the 3 (or was it 4?) places and get the things to defeat the final boss)

 

[Silvanus]

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.

Ah fair enough. Yeah that's true.

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.

Eh, i wouldn't say each battle system is different at all. Post-9, maybe. Exploration, travel, and kitting your team out was the same in a large number of instalments.

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.

FF has an ensemble cast. There is usually a Knight, a healer, a black mage etc, remaining quite consistent. You can't expect a single protag game to have the same breadth of party roles as a game with parties in it.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Eh, i wouldn't say each battle system is different at all. Post-9, maybe. Exploration, travel, and kitting your team out was the same in a large number of instalments.

Maybe not directly the battle system, but the things that surround the battle system. For example Jobs in V, Materia in VII, Junctioning in 8, Sphere Gird in X, etc etc etc. There are core mechanics in each game that pretty wildly vary the way the games are played.

You can't expect a single protag game to have the same breadth of party roles as a game with parties in it.

Why not? Give him different weapons or elemental powers that change how he functions depending on player choice. Beating each elemental temple, or whatever unlocks a new toolkit for Link to use.

Especially if you allow the player to beat the temple or "main" dungeons in any order. The player then gets to chose which way they are playing through the game that can be different.

Or make a Zelda game where you actually get to be Zelda. And she can play drastically differently. These latest games would have been perfect for a story of "duel playthrough" where you play as both Link and Zelda and the player can swap between them at will, with each other having different ways to go about things.

There's no real reason why they couldn't really mix things up. They just don't do it because....i dunno.

 

[Silvanus]

The games innovate, the games innovate plenty. That's typically THE Nintendo thing, and sometimes to a fault. Where they won't make a new entry to a well loved franchise unless it has a new way of playing it. But character wise you can't deny there's not much to sink your teeth in. Again, these characters are more mascot than character now. Similar to superheroes in that sense, and why I tend to not care too much about them.

If we're talking solely about characterisation, then sure, yeah. In that case WW was the last major deviation. But the argument so far seems to be about whether it's just the same game over and over; that's what I was objecting to.

Yeah, but those are generally the side games, which are given a bit more leeway to deviate.

Not side, just 2D. Besides which SS and MM were 3D home console instalments deviating from the formula.

 

[Silvanus]

Why not? Give him different weapons or elemental powers that change how he functions depending on player choice. Beating each elemental temple, or whatever unlocks a new toolkit for Link to use.

Well OK, but this applies to the vast majority of single player games.

Edit: also, you can literally play ranged only or even just using magic elemental wands in BOTW/TOTK if you want.

Or make a Zelda game where you actually get to be Zelda. And she can play drastically differently. These latest games would have been perfect for a story of "duel playthrough" where you play as both Link and Zelda and the player can swap between them at will, with each other having different ways to go about things.

There's no real reason why they couldn't really mix things up. They just don't do it because....i dunno.

I'd love that. Play as Zelda, go right ahead-- and BOTW/TOTK were the perfect time to do it. But this represents no more intransigence than in 90% of single player games.

 

[sXeth]

Maybe not directly the battle system, but the things that surround the battle system. For example Jobs in V, Materia in VII, Junctioning in 8, Sphere Gird in X, etc etc etc. There are core mechanics in each game that pretty wildly vary the way the games are played.

I mean, out of 16 mainline entries, the job system exists in at least 12 (and idk about 15 or 16), just because they pre-set the characters and made it difficult/impossible to change in some, it didn't wash out the mechanics. Along with at least 12 of those having the people line up to fight enemies in turn based combat consisting of "Fight/Attack, Cast Spell, and Item". And I'm trying to think if any of them had a main character that wasn't a sword wielding fighter or fighter/hybrid.

Stretching pretty far to try and make Junctioning and Materia some kind of seprate idea too.


Also, Link has been a "mage" in, most of them. As much as most anyone in that universe is. He uses wands, spells, etc in near every game. His usual sword/board + boomerang and/or bow is probably the more effective way to fight, but he tends to have magic as a side.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I'd love that. Play as Zelda, go right ahead. But this represents no more intransigence than in 90% of single player games.

Yes but most single player franchises are on their 24th installment either.

Again it's part of Nintendo's whole thing. They stick to the same shit constantly, that's why they're using the same franchises since day one basically. And in a way part of it is admirable that they've managed to build these crazy brands and stuck with them for so long. But you also have to admit there are levels of fatigue that also goes into place. Pokemon for example is a franchise that S&V were the first games I've finished since...fucking Black and White probably. Because that same shit different day does bore me.

That's why I said you can skip entries in Nintendo games in ways you can't really do with most other franchises. When I say that I think you are interpreting that I'm saying it's a problem, but it's really not.

I don't really have an issue with that, my reasons for not liking Zelda has already been explained and the repetitive nature of game by game is not one of them. I more bring up the repetitive nature of Nintendo as a problem with the company as a whole, considering they could be making a lot of new ideas, new types of games, but they simply don't. Nintendo makes toys and their games are meant to be simple toys, and that's really what it boils down to.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

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?

After what, twenty main games now it’s fair to assume *Zel-Blocks* was the only fresh feeling direction Nintendo could take the series. Plus Link now literally lives up to his name via piecing shit together like a fantasy-realm MacGuyver.

Zelda: “Link, what in Hyrule are you doing driving that massive fire breathing dildozer?”

Link: “Don’t worry, baby. It’s for Gannon!”

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Casual Shinji]

Okay yeah no, this game's good, it's really, really good. After doing on of those mapping towers and being shot into the sky I hang-glided myself to a tiny bit of sky island (just sky boulder really), and I spent the last two hours traversing through the sky from island to (bigger) island by strapping rockets and balloons to shit, making tree trunk towers to get the extra height to glide to even further islands, I fought a cool-ass Boss. This is some fun shit!

 

[Eacaraxe]

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.

Honestly the best bet is to not wait overlong to start exploring the depths, it's not as tough as it looks and the gloom is easier to navigate than it's made out to be. But, the rewards are worth it -- lizalfos arms are excellent fuse-fodder for their ease of acquisition and additional damage. Once you've been to Kakariko and Tarrey Town to get car parts, it's honestly quite easy to navigate the depths. I just wish there were a stable down there, and you could register the horses you find.

Oh, and rock octoroks actually restore weapon/shield durability this time, opposed to just polishing them. Each one can only repair a single item, so you can only do it a handful of times per blood moon.

There's even a giant swirling cloud structure in the sky that's obviously hiding another island.

If it's the one I think it is, that's a dungeon...and it is every. effing. bit. as huge as it looks from outside, considering you can see the entire structure from halfway across the map.

 

[Chimpzy]

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!

Third game will be about Link standing trial for war crimes.

That said, I'm getting mighty tempted to pick this up. I want to see if can build a Baneblade. Or a Beyblade? Or both, 11 barrels of hell, twirling wildly through the air spitting death indiscriminately.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes but most single player franchises are on their 24th installment either.

Again it's part of Nintendo's whole thing. They stick to the same shit constantly, that's why they're using the same franchises since day one basically. And in a way part of it is admirable that they've managed to build these crazy brands and stuck with them for so long. But you also have to admit there are levels of fatigue that also goes into place. Pokemon for example is a franchise that S&V were the first games I've finished since...fucking Black and White probably. Because that same shit different day does bore me.

That's why I said you can skip entries in Nintendo games in ways you can't really do with most other franchises. When I say that I think you are interpreting that I'm saying it's a problem, but it's really not.

I don't really have an issue with that, my reasons for not liking Zelda has already been explained and the repetitive nature of game by game is not one of them. I more bring up the repetitive nature of Nintendo as a problem with the company as a whole, considering they could be making a lot of new ideas, new types of games, but they simply don't. Nintendo makes toys and their games are meant to be simple toys, and that's really what it boils down to.

A lot of that I can kinda get behind, honestly. Fair points made. And as much as I love what they make-- and I still will get every Zelda happily-- I'd like it a lot more if they did switch more things up more often.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Hawki]

Not every Nintendo game within a franchise is the same, but you can't deny that Nintendo is adament about NEVER changing up the character or even world dynamic. This fierce protection has made their characters and aesthetics the most iconic in the industry, but it's also made them more brands than characters at this point. Playing the start of Tears of the Kingdom it was woefully par the course for Zelda to literally fall and disapear from the game. Zelda will always be Link needing to help/save Zelda against/from Ganon, Mario will always be Mario saving Peach from Bowser. And that's not even getting into gender tropes, but just that you have characters where there's no real point in getting invested in them, seeing as they haven't changed in 30 years, and as a result maybe not get too invested in the world or even the game itself.

Well, yes, but also no.

Zelda's technically in a position of being saved, but to claim that there hasn't been any changes over 30 years is stretching it. I don't have time to go over every LoZ game, but as an example:

-Zelda II: Sleeps through the whole game, waits to be woken up

-Spirit Tracks: Accompanies Link through the whole game, is vital in both gameplay and story, has a character arc, is outright hilarious at times

Peach has barely changed as a character, true. Zelda, on the other hand, has become far more fleshed out and pro-active as the series has progressed.

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.

Activision barely puts anything out these days bar CoD, so I'm not sure where you're getting at there. And even then, well, take a look at Crash 4. Back to the formula of Crash 1-3 (not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

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.

Sorry, what?

Okay, different strokes, different folks, but are you seriously saying that Activision has more variety in its IPs than Nintendo? Especially in the 2020s? Because if so, well, I'll put it this way. At one point, it was confirmed that every single studio of Activision was working on CoD. Every. Single. One. In the scope of the last few years, Nintendo's released Tears (action adventure), Xenoblade 3 (JRPG), Metroid Dread (Metroidvania), Splatoon 3 (TPS), etc.

How one feels about individual IPs is another thing, but to claim that Activision "puts out other shit that's nothing like CoD" is only true in the technical sense. I actually checked Activision's IP list, and the only IPs that could be called active are Call of Duty and Crash Bandicoot. That's it. Two franchises.

Big difference is that Activision doesn't even bother with any other shooters, but COD and Overwatch 2. Both are still shit.

Beg to differ (on OW2). Also, that's Blizzard, not Activision (but it is Activision Blizzard, because life's confusing like that).

Also, this is more directed to Crit, but if you mean "Activision" as "Activision Blizzard," then yes, there's variety, but Blizzard's closer in approach to Nintendo than Activision is - stick with a select no. of iconic franchises, each of which has their own formula, etc. However, two problems with that. 1: Nintendo still has more IPs than Blizzard, and 2: it doesn't look good on Activision Blizzard when only one half of it is doing the heavy lifting in variety, while the other is focused on a single IP to the near exclusion of everything else.

 

[BrawlMan]

Beg to differ (on OW2).

Good for you; don't care and not doing a back and for about it.

A lot of that shit didn't need to happen in the first place.

Overwatch 2 locks out players with pre-paid phone plans | VGC

UPDATE: Blizzard apologises for launch issues and drops phone number requirement for many players…

www.videogameschronicle.com

https://www.thegamer.com/activision-blizzard-removes-phone-contract-requirements-overwatch-call-of-duty/#:~:text=Initially%20required%20for%20all%20players,only%20enforced%20for%20PC%20players

.

​

Also, that's Blizzard, not Activision (but it is Activision Blizzard, because life's confusing like that).

Same difference. Same group of scumbags in charge and ruining everyone's lives, and wasting everyone's time. Blizzard does slightly more stuff than Activision. Whoop-dee-fucking doo. They both suck and are creatively bankrupt. With not much worth of a value (to me), aside from an exception or two. And even those exceptions don't mean a damn thing to me, as I have something better. I am not going off-topic any further.

 

[Casual Shinji]

This game is a goddamn time vampire.

 

[Samtemdo8]

Good for you; don't care and not doing a back and for about it.

A lot of that shit didn't need to happen in the first place.

Overwatch 2 locks out players with pre-paid phone plans | VGC

UPDATE: Blizzard apologises for launch issues and drops phone number requirement for many players…

www.videogameschronicle.com

https://www.thegamer.com/activision-blizzard-removes-phone-contract-requirements-overwatch-call-of-duty/#:~:text=Initially%20required%20for%20all%20players,only%20enforced%20for%20PC%20players

.

​

Same difference. Same group of scumbags in charge and ruining everyone's lives, and wasting everyone's time. Blizzard does slightly more stuff than Activision. Whoop-dee-fucking doo. They both suck and are creatively bankrupt. With not much worth of a value (to me), aside from an exception or two. And even those exceptions don't mean a damn thing to me, as I have something better. I am not going off-topic any further.

I will still play no matter what, because I don't care

 

[BrawlMan]

I will still play no matter what, because I don't care

Don't know why you needed to tell me that. You're a grown adult; you can make decisions for yourself.