Post by Fryguy64 on Aug 18, 2023 14:59:51 GMT -5
BotW was going to be a difficult formula to repeat. At the start, I didn't know what to expect from this world. I learned to fear Lynels, rather than going in knowing they were going to give me trouble. I learned from scratch how to survive the elements, rather than knowing which areas were going to be cold and exactly how to deal with it.
It was definitely cursed by being a direct sequel with largely the same map. And while the Depths offered a chance to extend that feeling into an unknown region, it was just too samey all over.
The only bit I I disagree with you on - but I think it's a disagreement over terminology, is the "lore".
I wasn't expecting consistent lore from a Zelda game. That would be folly. But many Zelda games hint at some shared history. The kind of things that allow speculation to run rife, but not actually specify anything. EVERY Zelda game since the Super NES has given me that feeling. But Tears of the Kingdom basically scrapes through piggybacking on what was already in Breath of the Wild. The same familiar landmasses. The same place names. The same outfits. I was left with a lot of questions, but it felt as though all of my speculation was my own. The game offered nothing. And after many dozens of hours, it became clear they had no interest in telling any kind of story.
I think if I'd played Tears of the Kingdom without having played Breath of the Wild, I would have enjoyed it more, but I also think some of its failings would have stood out much earlier too. It's a tricky game to place. It absorbed my time and attention, but it failed to hit that sweet spot: where you're happy doing the time-consuming world exploration tasks because you know they'll pay off towards your story goals.
It was definitely cursed by being a direct sequel with largely the same map. And while the Depths offered a chance to extend that feeling into an unknown region, it was just too samey all over.
The only bit I I disagree with you on - but I think it's a disagreement over terminology, is the "lore".
I wasn't expecting consistent lore from a Zelda game. That would be folly. But many Zelda games hint at some shared history. The kind of things that allow speculation to run rife, but not actually specify anything. EVERY Zelda game since the Super NES has given me that feeling. But Tears of the Kingdom basically scrapes through piggybacking on what was already in Breath of the Wild. The same familiar landmasses. The same place names. The same outfits. I was left with a lot of questions, but it felt as though all of my speculation was my own. The game offered nothing. And after many dozens of hours, it became clear they had no interest in telling any kind of story.
I think if I'd played Tears of the Kingdom without having played Breath of the Wild, I would have enjoyed it more, but I also think some of its failings would have stood out much earlier too. It's a tricky game to place. It absorbed my time and attention, but it failed to hit that sweet spot: where you're happy doing the time-consuming world exploration tasks because you know they'll pay off towards your story goals.
