I remember when TOTK came out, I heard a lot of people say that BOTW was entirely obsolete and that they would never play it again. But recently, I’ve started replaying BOTW and I can’t see this at all. Objectively, TOTK has more content than BOTW, but tbh, I was somewhat disappointed with the game.

Yes, it was a great game, but it really felt like I was playing BOTW again with more stuff added but without the atmosphere that I loved. Replaying BOTW, I still feel like I’m discovering everything for the first time. And that’s because the game goes out of its way to build up a lonely atmosphere and tells you very little about the world before it sets you lose. Even when I first played TOTK, it felt like I was re-exploring areas I was already deeply familiar with and that’s because there’s a whole slew of characters on Link’s team which are already very familiar with him and there’s way more introduction before you can do anything.

It also doesn’t really help that a lot of the issues I had with BOTW weren’t really addressed or when they did address them, it seems like they didn’t really understand why they were issues in the first place. I honestly think the dungeons in TOTK are worse than the ones in BOTW. Sure, BOTW used the same aesthetics 4 times, but I felt like the puzzles were at least more interesting and dynamic over all. The water temple in TOTK may be my least favorite dungeon in the series. It’s just so overly massive and has 5 pretty lame puzzles that you have to do separately. I recently played games like Majora’s Mask and Skyward Sword and those games’ water dungeons completely blow TOTK’s out of the water. Like they’re not even close to the same level.

But yeah, TOTK is a good game and I’m definitely gonna replay it one of these days, it just doesn’t hit the same way as BOTW for me and I don’t get why people said that it made that game redundant.

In other words, it's going to be 98% the same game with fancy new graphics.

I've seen some wild speculation in these here parts that it's going to feature a bunch of new content, or that the still-ongoing Final Fantasy 7 remake saga would somehow be a model for what Nintendo wants to do with this game.

Not bloody likely.

The Link's Awakening remake was basically the same game as the original Game Boy game with a few quality of life improvements. It sold over 6 million copies. Nintendo outsourced its development to Grezzo, and helped them come up with a new art style. Grezzo went on to use this art style—and presumably the experience they gained from making this game—to create a new 2D game, Echoes of Wisdom. This game sold over 4 million copies.

The new Star Fox game follows a similar pattern. It is being developed by Valen studios. It appears to be the exact same N64 game with a few minor modifications. It will probably sell millions of copies.

I think this is very clearly the model here. Nintendo is likely outsourcing OoT's development to another company. They're probably heavily involved, looking over shoulders like they did with Grezzo, with an eye to train this company to make future Zelda IP. Perhaps this company will one day make a new "classic" 3D Zelda along the lines of the N64 and GC games.

But I seriously doubt Nintendo has their A team working on this game. That team is probably working on the next open world game.

(Edit: I don't mean to downplay the fancy graphics; finding a suitable high-definition art style to "translate" these old 3D games into is no small feat.)

I’m a Japanese player, writing in English (with a translator) to share a perspective that has been weighing on me since the release of Tears of the Kingdom.

After spending significant time with the game, I realized I couldn’t return to Breath of the Wild with the same clarity. TOTK doesn’t just continue BOTW — it reframes it. A story that once centered on scars, consequences, and recovery now feels "purified" to support a more sanctified interpretation.

I will read all responses carefully, though my replies may be slow due to the time required for translation. I appreciate your understanding.

I am writing this coldly on purpose. Anger is easy; precision is harder.

1. Accountability is replaced by reverence Power comes with responsibility. In BOTW, failure had weight; King Rhoam’s collapse had a cost. Even Link faced direct grief from those who lost loved ones. In TOTK, Zelda returns to a world that feels overwhelmingly affirming. The sequel treats leadership as a pedestal for admiration rather than a position of accountability.

2. Governance becomes ambience, not responsibility Zelda is shown "working for reconstruction," but the focus is on visible, people-facing tasks: gardening, teaching recipes. While gratifying, real restoration is structural: law, security, and administration. The narrative treats nationhood as ambience, managing an image rather than royal duty.

3. Sacrifice is aestheticized BOTW made sacrifice feel tragic. TOTK treats it as a sublime necessity. By emphasizing the beauty of "dragonification" over the urgency of protecting the person (Link) who is still forced to fight alone, the narrative starts worshipping devotion as an image.

4. The privatization of memory (Hateno Village) This is where the reframing becomes most visible. In BOTW, Link’s house was the tangible proof of a reclaimed life. I paid for it with my own rupees; it was my anchor. In TOTK, this space is recontextualized as "Zelda’s house," and Link’s traces are erased. To call this "romance" is to ignore the human cost. It doesn’t feel like renovation. It feels like the emotional anchor itself was burned.

5. “Fated love” as a solvent When "fated love" is used to dissolve every structural problem or narrative contradiction, the characters stop being human and become instruments to protect a specific image. Love is not a magic excuse for the loss of agency.

Conclusion: Liberation, not worship TOTK doesn’t simply rebuild Hyrule; it sanitizes what BOTW endured. We don’t need another tale of worship. We need Link to be free: free from being narratively instrumentalized, and free to exist as a person.

I have shared a more detailed analysis on Gist, including the original Japanese version of this essay for further context. I’ll post the link in the comments below.

breath of the wild was amazing and changed the video game indurisy, tears of the kingdom tho good was just more of the same and with Age of Imprisonment now released we have had 3 game back to back that all are very similar. i think the next few games should be very different and set up a way for all 3 timelines to merge back into 1, what do you all think?

(my fav and first zelda game was spirt tracks and then twilight princess and i love those games 10x more then tears of the kingdom)

It's been over three years since Tears of the Kingdom came out.

The first trailer for "the sequel to Breath of the Wild" came out in 2019, less than three years after BotW came out.

It's time, folks.

The Ocarina of Time remake is a red herring. It is not the once-every-five-years A-team Zelda game. I'm sure they'll talk about OoT, and they'll talk about the Zelda movie, and some merchandising stuff. But the main course is going to be a new game.

(edit: by main course i mean it's going to be the most exciting thing, not how much time it will take up. i imagine most of the direct duration will be about oot.)

Why is it going to be rad? Tears of the Kingdom was a deeply conservative game. For all its technical innovations and ambitions, it stuck extremely closely to the BotW formula—shrines, koroks, 4 abilities, terminal dungeons. Surely they had plenty of ideas that didn't fit in this formula—or into the Switch's paltry technical specs.

I don't think the new game is going to stick to the BotW formula, and I don't think it's going to regress to the Link to the Past formula either. I think Nintendo has had over a decade to dream big and we're about to see what they have in store.

Edit: and before you say, "Who cares what you think? You're just some loser on the internet." I am in fact a great prophet of Zelda. I predicted the existence of the Depths, and I named the nature of the Magic Meter. Ignore my prognostications at your peril.

Edit 2: I WAS DECEIVED BY GANONDORF. may nayru have mercy on me.

"Breath of the Wild is just a modern take on Zelda 1" is probably my biggest Zelda pet peeve alongside "the timeline isn't real". People always justify this with the vague definition of "open world", when the two games couldn't be any more different. At that point, you might as well say the Elder Scrolls series is a successor to Zelda 1. Zelda 1 is absolutely not open world in the modern definition of the word. It was "open world" when compared to most other NES games at the time that were linear sidescrollers. But you know what, OoT was also "open world" by 1998 N64 standards. The fact is, "open world" as in the modern genre we know it today did not exist yet (I believe it was GTA3 that created the modern open world genre). BotW is definitely the first Zelda game in the modern open world genre.

People also ignore that Zelda 1 literally follows the Zelda formula. It has a huge focus of dungeons that take up a majority of the playtime (just look at any Zelda 1 playthrough on Youtube, the majority of playtime is spent in dungeons. Very different from BotW). Dungeons are firmly traditional dungeons with small keys, dungeon map, compass, and a dungeon item (many times the dungeon item is needed to progress the dungeon or beat the boss). The world has a metroidvania progression, and while there is flexibility in dungeon order, you cannot do the dungeons in any order. You need the raft from dungeon 3 to get to dungeon 4, you need the stepladder from dungeon 4 to do dungeons 5, 6, and 7, you need the flute from dungeon 5 to access dungeon 7, etc. The narrative that Zelda 1 is some open world game focused on freedom that the series abandoned with ALttP and OoT, but then finally returned to in BotW makes zero sense. Zelda 1 is literally the proto ALttP/OoT formula.

The reason why Zelda 1 feels more open ended/nonlinear compared to its successors is not due to some massive change in design philosophy. It's because Zelda 1 barely has a story being an NES game from 1986. The series evolved to have a greater focus on story, which naturally leads to more linearity. The Final Fantasy series is the same. Final Fantasy 1 barely has much story, and it is quite open ended with a focus on talking to NPCs to figure out where to go next. But then around the SNES era (Final Fantasy 4) the series became much more story focused and thus a more guided/linear experience. You don't see people saying they want Final Fantasy to go back to the roots of Final Fantasy 1's minimal story. In fact when people say they want Final Fantasy to go back to its roots they usually mean more like the SNES and PS1 games.

Funnily enough if you remove the story in most of the pre-BotW Zelda games, the experience is very similar to Zelda 1. Like take the randomizer mods. The randomizers of games like OoT, MM, WW, etc. are functionally not much different at all to how Zelda 1 plays. Certainly much more similar to Zelda 1 than BotW is.

I'm not going to mention TotK since I probably don't have to explain why a game that is focused on vehicle crafting has little to no similarities with Zelda 1.

I’ve been a TOTK hater since day one. I had a brief honeymoon period with the game but it wore off after about a month. The game felt like a straight retread of BOTW with a new core mechanic added in and two half hearted map expansion in the sky and in the depths. I sometimes forget TOTK exists if I’m completely honest but someone just happened to bring it up today and I wanted to see how we are feeling after it’s been almost a year and has had some time to breathe.

**Preface:**
After the release of breath of the wild, Link has become far closer to that ‘androgynous’ look. Personally, i don’t mind it, i think it’s good if more people can project themselves onto him and enjoy the game. My issue comes purely from a design and development history standpoint. I’d love to hear everyone’s opinion on this, as i’m just as liable to be wrong.

**The point:**
Since 2016, i’ve seen a huge surge in people who believe Link was always designed as Androgynous, with overtly feminine features. I remember these discussions kicking off before the release of the Switch and BOTW, after Aounuma had joked about Link being a girl this time around. During a Time magazine interview, he had stated that the idea of making Link Androgynous had been an idea of his since Ocarina of Time and it had ‘returned’ for Breath of the Wild, crowing Link as the internet’s ultimate ‘twink.’

I understand the appeal of Link being relatable to women, LGBTQ+ etc etc and i think the current design is a perfect mix of allowing people who aren’t men to project themselves onto what is essentially an avatar while also still being distinctly male for us who’ve already been doing that, best of both worlds.

But, Link has never *really* been androgynous before this. So why do i see many people claim that it’s how he was always designed?

Practically every source from designing Link from the original Zelda has emphasised the fact that he was designed to look like a young boy, his artwork shows him to be quite boyish and without many standout feminine traits to begin with. Any softness in his design was due to the fact that he was a 12 year old child. Miyamoto had stated that Link was intentionally designed as a blank slate but in all official artwork, there is no debate that Link looks like the ‘everyday boy’ Miyamoto was going for. A similar design existed for Zelda 2 and ALTTP (along with the Gameboy games), which also didn’t show many androgynous features but i do get it, ‘boyish’ and having androgynous traits can overlap and Link did have quite a few softer features, he’s no Kratos and certainly wasn’t the pinnacle of masculinity but he was very identifiable in artwork as a dude with a sharp face.

Ocarina of Time is stated by Aounuma as when the idea for a more gender neutral Link became a thing. I’ve heard many many people refer to OOT Link as more gender neutral, there’s a whole article on the guardian where someone found their whole gender identity based on Adult Link’s gender neutral look (good for them, i’m glad my favourite series has that effect on people), but whenever someone says that, i honestly wonder if i have a different copy of Ocarina of Time than everyone else. Adult Link especially was quite athletic, muscularly defined and broad. He had thick arms, a permanent angry resting face with thick eyebrows and the athletic upside down triangle build, with broad shoulders compared to his waist. All the promo art made sure to show off his muscular definition and the in game dialogue made sure you knew he grew up to be quite the conventionally attractive dude. I honestly couldn’t point to one androgynous design choice on him, the guy was a total stud.

Eiji Aounuma himself said that BOTW was a return to the idea, meaning that it was basically never realised after that, and based on the wording, OOT Link never ended up being gender neutral either. Yoshiaki Koizumi has stated that Link was designed to be a handsome and good looking dude, Yusuke Nakano drew him pretty accordingly based on an equally handsome Hollywood actor. Miyamoto said he wanted Link to look cool. They gave him a pretty deep voice for a 17 year old and made it a point to make him angular and manish. In the interview Aounuma says that later games abandoned the gender neutral idea as well, particularly twilight princess, where they wanted him to be more masculine and gritty

So my question is, where the hell did twink Link come from, or the idea that he was always gender neutral? He was either like 10 or an adult and a dreamboat, more of a ladies man than a ladyish man.

By throwing most known Zelda elements out of the window with the Wild era games, the franchise has lost an identity and style of game that was unique to it. That dungeon crawling style of gameplay with long tighly designed puzzle boxes dungeons and their overwhelming atmosphere + item progression; is something that hasnt been able to be replicated in any other game, especially in 3D

2D Zelda clones there has been many of them, some of them are quite good, and others not so much. But the 3D ones, there is simply nothing like it. Some could say Okami or Darksiders, but... is not really the same, and these are already pretty old games. There has been some indies with some projects pending, but get lost in the process.

And is frustrating when you see fans of other franchises like Final Fantasy, who also changed and had their own fanbases divided aswell, but guess what? Atleast they got games like the current aclaimed Expedition 33 that pandered to older FF fans, or Baldurs Gate, or the Bravely Default series. But us older Zelda fans, especially from the OOT to SS era, got nothing like that.

I hope this doesn’t come across as hate, because it isn’t intended to be. This is just my opinion, and not everyone has to agree with it!

I was so demystified by BotW and TotK, that I went and replayed through some older titles—OoT, MM, WW, ST, TP, SS—and realized that what I was missing from the two newest titles was the magic that older Zelda games were able to produce, while still having a linear story and a small world that truly felt endless.

Despite how small the maps were in some of the older games, no area truly felt closed off or suffocating. I love how spaces were reused during different portions of the game, and loved how close-knit the world felt. There were no big, empty spaces with nothing to do, no copy/paste of the same trial every hundred feet. And the music? Christ. The music in those older games really is the cherry on top of everything.

BotW and TotK aren’t bad games, but they just don’t have that “Zelda magic” that the older games do. The worlds are just so large, haphazardly filled with the same shrines, mob spawns, and quiet emptiness that really makes me feel disconnected. The music is hollow and lacklustre in comparison, and the story just doesn’t do anything to catch or keep my attention. I also couldn’t really care less about any of the NPC’s, because it really feels like they were added to make the world feel less empty.

That being said, I understand that the world in BotW and TotK is supposed to be almost post-apocalyptic due to the story, but I wish that the devs would have stuck to their original theme when making these two games. The story could have been beautifully pieced together with the same type of energy that the previous titles had, had they not chosen to basically make Skyrim with a Zelda skin slapped onto it.

In the two newest games, I spent more time resource managing and trying to figure out where the hell I was going, versus actually enjoying the story or the characters tied to it. I really hope that this open world concept isn’t kept for long, because I don’t want to play the whisper of a Zelda game—I want to play a ZELDA game.

A few years back when I joined this sub I noticed discussion here and there of people talking about how a lot of the fandom does not actually think the timeline exists. This shocked me, though admittedly I hadn't really been that invested in the fandom itself since the 2000's.

But after seeing those comments I started noticing it everywhere. In particular, when I'd bring up just the very existence of the timeline in some discord chat or something I'd immediately be met with people who seem to very confidently believe that the "timeline" was just made up by fans and then later "canonized" by Nintendo in bad faith.

This is not an argument for the timeline existing, btw. I feel like this post here has more than enough evidence for you to decide for yourself.

I have, however, been working on a write up about the timeline focusing on misconceptions surrounding, well, just its very existence, and I was wondering about why it got to the point in a fandom where something as simple and as well documented as "the timeline exists" became so contested. So I'd love to hear from any of you why you think that?

We know that there is a massive amount of new fans that came to the series thanks to BOTW and TOTK. But i know that a huge portion of those new fans, havent actually played the older games, or simply dont want to, because well... they "old" and "dated"

If the remake actually happens, and they leave all the core elements intact, like the item gated progression, the structured dungeons, and the linear/present time storyline. But expand Hyrule a bit more, add more caves and maybe more enemy variety and even mini dungeons, and making the game overall way more polished. Is a perfect way to sell people (especially the newer fans) to the classic Zelda formula and feeling, aswell as reminding older fans how good it was.

If it sells well, which obviously will, i mean is a remake of OOT for gods sake lol. This would definetly tell Nintendo and the Zelda team that there is definetly still a big audience for that classic Zelda format, and would take it in mind for their decisions going forward. Im also excited to see reactions of newer Zelda fans that never touched a game before BOTW/TOTK.

Full list: https://www.ign.com/articles/the-100-best-nintendo-games-of-all-time#picks-20-1

For reference, here's every Zelda game that made the list:

61. Twilight Princess

47. Link's Awakening

41. The Legend of Zelda

24. Majora's Mask

21. A Link Between Worlds

16. The Wind Waker

9. A Link to the Past

6. Ocarina of Time

2. Breath of the Wild

1. Tears of the Kingdom

Can't say I agree with BotW and TotK being the absolute best Zelda games, let alone the best Nintendo games ever made. LA, OoT, MM, and TWW are all much better games IMO (and Link's Awakening + Majora's Mask should be ranked MUCH higher). Nice to see the OG Zelda and A Link Between Worlds get some love, though.

And A Link to the Past deserves more than just barely cracking the Top 10. That's just criminal.

Assuming that Ocarina of time is properly “reborn” on the switch 2 and it is a complete reimagining with modern mechanics while keeping full dungeons, I feel like the legend of Zelda team could find the proper middle ground between the “old school Zelda formula” and the BOTW TOTK open world “do whatever you want whenever you want” formula. How this game turns out could be a serious sign for the future of the series and I’m really optimistic

Once the game comes, out give it a year or two and see how they all pitch a different tune. History really does repeat itself. Nintendo will absolutely shift the art style between different games, there is no ONE style. It also fits to show the "Not every Link is the same." Thing. It helps distinguish between the timelines and heroes.

This in no way is meant to gatekeep cause Zelda/OoT is for everyone.

I am 40, was 13 when Ocarina of Time first came out as I got it for Christmas in 1998. I remember reading Nintendo Power each month looking for updates on what was then known as *Zelda 64*. Prior to this, A Link to the Past was my most cherished Nintendo experience so *Zelda 64* was a huge deal. A game with a full day/night cycle and a world that reacts to it. A game where I can play as both kid and adult Link. Ride a horse. And most importantly, explore Hyrule on a 3D setting just like Mario 64....*"realistic"* graphics.

Ocarina of Time was a transformative experience for many of us older millennials and even Gen Xers.

But I have been seeing a lot of positive reactions from younf people, many of which was born **after** OoT originally released. Many even reacting in a very emotional way and to be honest, I am sort of shocked. Most who was born after OoT likely grew up on Windwaker or even Twilight Princess and thus does not have the same nostalgia as someone who played the the game circa 1998-2000.

Honest question but for those that are much younger, where does the hype, especially on the emotional level come from for a game like OoT?

Thanks

EDIT: Not sure why people are downvoting but oh well...

SPOILERS WITHIN, DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THE DIRECT AND/OR DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT

__________

Wanted to start a thread that didn't get lost in the more general reaction thread about the remake. There is a Japanese website that includes some footage and a lot of good images: https://www.nintendo.com/jp/games/switch2/aa9ja/index.html

Notably at the bottom is a collage of various screenshots (https://www.nintendo.com/jp/games/switch2/aa9ja/assets/img/top/hyrule_kv_04.webp?unoptimized=true) [If this link doesn't work just visit the site and scroll down near the bottom and look for a collage showing Saria, Impa, Malon, Mido, Ruto, Sheik, etc]

Some notable things are Impa now has a Sheikah Eye on her forehead which she didn't have originally. Mido also has tattoos that greatly resemble the tattoos that Sonia had in the founding period of Tears of the Kingdom's story (he even seems to have the same eye color when Saria's look bluer). And one more interesting thing is Sheik's harp is much more obviously the same harp from Skyward Sword which was already fairly obvious but now the details match way more than before.

Anyone else notice anything interesting?

I know some of you reading this will feel upset by the mention of the timeline and go immediately to the comments to say "nintendo doesn't care" or "the timeline was only to please fans," but please, just read this post because comments like that are incredibly disingenuous and write off so much that is actually present in the games and with what the devs have said.

To start, the notion that the timeline isn't real and that the wild era games take place in a separate continuity are entirely baseless and go against what we know. Other people have said it better than I, so if you want to read a more in depth reddit post, read this.
As you are probably aware, Zeltik also made a similar video a while back chronicling all the times the Zelda team has mention and took care with the timeline. Here is the link to the video.
To summarise both those sources, ever since the series began the timeline has always been something that has been given care in the series; it is and never was an afterthought, nor do the devs ignore it.

There are still a ton of you who will read sources like this and be aware of it but still willingly write off the timeline because it doesn't make sense to them.
However, that train of thought is incredibly antithetical to the series' overarching lore and the entire concept of good faith discussion. You are actively ignoring a huge part of the series and a huge point of discussion simply because you do not like it.

I also implore you to find inconsistencies in the lore for the timeline. I am not saying this to say there aren't any; what I am saying is that there aren't nearly as many as the internet claims there are, and even if you do find them, it is much more beneficial for a healthy discussion to come up with theories and discussion points to rationalise these cases, which has been a noted intention of the series' ambiguity.

For example, recently Nintendo's japanese Zelda site has more or less confirmed refounding to be true. Totk itself presents the founding as one singular Hyrule without ever mentioning a past one, and yet there were so many inconsistencies with the notion it was a true founding that it didn't make sense to a lot of people.
Instead of writing off the timeline wholly by saying Nintendo just doesn't care anymore, people came up with the refounding theory which neatly explained away the inconsistencies and continued the cyclical themes of the series that were expanded on in Skyward Sword.

That is an example of a health discussion point in response to an inconsistency or something you don't like about the lore.
Find a theory, a detail, or even a headcanon that explains it for you rather than spreading vitriol about it; that way, discussions about the series will be more fun and will be made in good faith.

Tears of the kingdom is a good game, but man did the hype affect players. Upon its release everyone was practically unanimously praising TOTK, saying how its story was amazing and how BOTW was now obsolete because of it. Fast forward nine months and a people have grown a lot more critical of the game. Video essays popping up about how bland the narrative is, uninteresting characters, copying BOTW too much. The situation is extremely similar to that of Bioshock Infinite, where a lot of fans have turned on the game over time once the hype has faded. I don't recall this happening with any other Zelda games, so was the initial response to the game actually biased?

I can't believe I had to stop the game to rant about this!!

I'm playing it through for the first time and I am really enjoying Skyward Sword. So far I've found it kinda easy sometimes challenging, playable, relaxing, engaging, and I look forward to playing it. I only just got it last Thursday and have been playing it quite a bit and just finished the sacred flames. I've heard that it was repetitive before I played it but didn't take much stock most of the game. I thought it was kinda fun to go back to the old places.

Then I "beat" Levias, and he says I now need to get the Song of the Hero........from dragons from the SAME 3 REGIONS. I truly thought after the sacred flames we were done going back. That makes the initial run(1), silent realm (2), sacred flame (3), and now DRAGON SONGS? (4!!!!!!!!)

I seriously groaned out loud. And I had really been enjoying it but now it does feel all at once too much. I was looking forward to the next part, not rehashing more of the same. Holy Moly.

Has anyone seen the Simpsons? When Marge gets the Pink Chanel Suit and she can't afford another one so she re-tailors it every time and the rich ladies make fun of her? This feels like that pink suit.

While every Zelda fan was likely emotional today and holds some level of nostalgia for Ocarina of Time. Today's reveal hits differently for those of us(Gen X and Millennials) that played the original back in 98 and 99.

When the game released, there was nothing like it. 3D Adventure gaming was still in the embroyo stage with the only other standout being Mario 64. So playing this in 98/99 it was under the perspective of never seeing anything like this done before in the industry and having that innately feeling that what we are playing will be part of history and we are getting to experience it first hand. Its sort like watching Star Wars in a theater in 1977.

Yes, people got to experience it later and it was part of their childhood, especially the 2011 3DS *remake*. But by then the industry had already advanced and thus there was no industry impact like how it was in 1998. Games like RDR1, Morrowind/Oblivion, GTA4 and so on was already out. Zelda games like Twilight Princess and Windwaker....all of which was already advancing on the OoT concept was already out. So the context was different.

Now 28 years later, I get to experience this game once again but in a updated fashion. Playing the game with the past experience and contextual understanding from 1998 hits differently and something that only someone who is a Millennial or Gen X can fully describe.

November 5th cannot come soon enough.

1. Breath of the Wild was not isolated and empty simply due to tech or time limitations. It is a legitimate expression of isolation in nature, and the game is *about* being alone. You wake up a hundred years from your own time knowing no one. The world is hollowed out and post-apocalyptic.
2. Tears of the Kingdom is much, much denser and more thriving with living beings. But that is not simply because they had more time to put into the game, or because it wasn't developed for the Wii U. It's also trying to do something different! The purpose of this game is not for you to feel alone in nature.
3. Each game should be judged on its own merits. Tears of the Kingdom is not a crude add-on to a preexisting world; Breath of the Wild is not a shoddy first draft of a later, 'proper' game either. They are both successful games that do very different things.
4. I do think Tears of the Kingdom is a superior game, but it is not without flaws. I find the plot and story structure somewhat convoluted. Its focus on a united Hyrule and its various internecine conflicts is less beautiful, for my part, than BotW's focus on a ruined world and the straggling lives wandering through it. Nevertheless, its gameplay is simply aiming for a radically different thing than BotW. In the first game you tackled the land; in this game you master it.
5. One thing I think both games get seriously, tremendously wrong is the mainline story script. Because each of the four 'quests' can be done in any order, the writers strive to replicate as much of the dialogue as humanly possible. Each sage says the exact same thing. Each ancestor says the exact same thing. It was exactly the same in BotW -- Daruk will be like "that big monster took me down 100 years ago!" while Revali will go "that monster defeated me 100 years ago -- but only because I was winging it!" and Mipha will go "that terrible monster defeated me, 100 years ago..." It's really awful. It renders each character robotic in the face of a deeply mechanical story construction.
6. They're still both masterpieces.

Ever since TOTK came out I've seen people say that refounding is clearly what the devs intensed, that it is much simpler and cleaner than a True Founding, and that it is the easy fix. You just put it at the very end and it doesn't clash or overlap with anything, so problem solved. But if you actually think through what a refounding requires, it feels anything but simple, and I feel people don't do this. They think "it's all after everything else" and stop there. And if I try to bring up these arguments against it, I'm usually met with "Yeah but Nintendo doesn't care", and if I try to bring up concrete evidence for a True Founding, then the evidence isn't good enough. Problems with a True Founding is always brought up in detail, but never for a Refounding, and a Refounding is far from as "easy and simple" as most think, and here are some reasons why:

First, you have to downplay or ignore a bunch of direct suggestions and lore the games and books actually make, like the Zonai predating humans, or the Sheikah eye resembling the Zonai's physical third eye. Yeah, it's from in-universe characters, but the authors of the book made these in-universe characters make this claim at least 3 different times, and no alternate theories to counter them. Ignoring this is nonsensical.

A refounding also means taking a very selective approach to what's canon. Dismissing some parts of a source as retconned, while still using other lines from the exact same section as evidence (such as the connection between OOT Dorf and Calamity Ganon now apparently being non-canon, but the sentence under it in the very same text box is constantly used as evidence for a refounding).

Then there's the memory problem. In a true founding, a lot of things flow naturally. Demon King Ganondorf never becomes the pig like Ganon before being sealed, knowledge of him getting erased explains why no one connects later events to him, and Ocarina of Time Ganondorf becoming Ganon and being remembered in myths fits with what Creating a Champion and BOTW tellsnus. The Divine Beasts being named after those sages makes sense, as they name the beasts after the first sages who fought the very same Ganon. In refounding on the other hand, you need an extremely selective cultural memory where people remember the OOT sages but forget the evil king they fought. Then TOTK Ganondorf's history was forgotten and erased, and yet somehow, people correctly link Calamity Ganon to exactly the right forgotten Ganondorf that no one should know about at this point, let alone where his seal is, all while the original Ganon who didn't get his history erased is forgotten, despite Gerudo records saying otherwise...? And the Sheikah name the Divine Beasts after the sages from a kingdom and a war no one remembers anymore, instead of the more recent Imprisoning War? It's a complete mess.

It's also a lot of coincidences and selective memory. And the biggest point for refounding to work: You need a massive kingdom-destroying event so total that its history is lost. It would be one of the biggest events in the chronology's history. But there's zero evidence for any such event. No ruins, no characters even hinting at it, no timeline entry, nothing. Even in the "new" timeline a few days ago that supposedly confirm a refounding, they don't use any words such as "a new Hyrule is founded", or "the kingdom is destroyed", like what is done in the sections for Wind Waker and Spirit Tracks. If the goal was to confirm a refounding here, why not write the same things here? It's still just "Hyrule is founded" and 0 mentions of a previous kingdom. The interview quote people lean on from Fujibayashi has other plausible translations too, and those interprate it as history being lost, not a kingdom being destroyed. And honestly, a lot of "it retcons everything we knew regarding Hyrule's founding" talk assumes we had a detailed founding story already. We didn't. We knew almost nothing beyond vague placement between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap.

So yeah, I'm not saying a true founding is 100% the right answer, and a refounding isn't impossible, but it is far, far from the simple, obvious solution that gets claimed so often.

This discussion is about what you expect from the Ocarina of Time Remake. Assuming this thing is still coming this year, it's not long at all until we have the game in our hands, plus we have an inevitable extra trailer from a Nintendo Direct.

Here's some things I think are worth wondering about:

1. Will any Wild-Era symbols or design patterns make their way into the remake?

2. Will we get any additional or changed Hylian text? (Textures in places like the Temple of Time where you can find Hylian Text)

3. Will the script or story change at all?

4. Will there be minimal voice acting or more extensive voice acting? (Comparing a voice acted intro like the trailer but otherwise no voice acting compared to voiced cutscene dialogue)

5. Will there be any item changes or additions?

6. Will any dungeons be changed?

7. What frame rate and resolution will we get?

That list is not exhaustive at all but these are some of the things that I think about when wondering what may change. Personally, I'm not really expecting any script changes although I think some dialogue may get cleaned up or made more consistent with later titles.

The lava/goop under Ganon's Castle might end up looking more like Gloom or Malice.

I think the Triforce of Courage symbol on Link's hand may indicate some change to the plot but I dunno.

I want to say I don't think the dungeons will get any kind of rework beyond what the 3DS version may have changed.

I don't expect us to see or learn anything more about the king, but I would be pleasantly surprised if we do.

I HOPE that when the Master Sword glows blue during the Ganon fight that we hear Fi's jingle.

I'm curious what other people are expecting to change about the remake.

Today I really want to get something off my chest, I am tired of the common talking point that Breath of the Wild " saved " the Zelda franchise by shaking up the " tired formula " of other Zelda titles.

Now I'm not saying Breath of the Wild is a bad game, I think the controls and gameplay engine is the best in the entire franchise, and some things were improved on, like getting rid of block pushing puzzles for magnesis.

But overall tho, Breath of the Wild is given gigantic praise, overwhelming support as tho it redefined gaming as a whole. But did it ? I don't think so, lets go point by point of how BoTW is generally given unearned praise at the expense of the throwing the rest of the franchise under the bus for no real reason. Lets begin shall we:

1. " Breath of the Wild saved the Zelda franchise that was selling poorly because the series had become stagnant in the Zelda formula. The series needed to change in order to evolve and survive in the modern day. "

Is this true ? Not really. Lets look at more successful video game franchises than Zelda, have they changed their formula? Mario, Tetris, Call of Duty, Pokemon, Grand Theft Auto, and Assassin's Creed have all sold more copies than the Zelda franchise and they generally don't shake up the formula all that much.

Zelda more so than most Nintendo franchise's, has tried to change up the formula in the past. Zelda 2 ( sidescroller ), Majora's Mask ( 3 day time system/masks), the DS Zelda's ( stylus controls ) and Wind Waker ( an entire flooded world ) all stand out as being quite different than other games in the franchise. These games also where no were near as popular as the standard formula Zelda games like Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess. So the idea that changing up the formula = surviving or more sales does not really hold water. Alot of times people just want a bigger and better sequel, works for Grand Theft Auto and Mario, why not Zelda?

Another thing to mention was Twilight Princess, which is often considered a rehash of Ocarina of Time, was the best selling Zelda game before Breath of the Wild, it sold more copies than even Halo 2. For 2006, Twilight almost cracked 9 million units sold, which was amazing for the time period as the number of gamers back then was alot smaller. So the idea that Zelda was some niche series that barely broke even, just doesn't hold up, there is no telling how successful a Twilight Princess 2 on the Switch could have been. It may not have been 30 million copies, but it certainly would sell better than people give credit for.

1. " Breath of the Wild is a breath of fresh air, after the series has become stagnant. Why didn't Nintendo shake up the series sooner ? "

This argument tries to pretend as tho Nintendo could have always made a Breath of the Wild, they just chose not to, in order to make safe formulaic games, but this just does not match reality.

Lets first ask ourselves, why did Nintendo make BoTW? Its mainly because Skyward Sword, sold quite poorly, even after it was in development for 5 years. It was a hard sell to gamers, Twilight Princess had already grabbed people's attention, it had realistic graphics and a massive overworld to ride around with Epona. Skyward on the other hand, was coming out on a dying Wii, with unreliable motion controls, and the artstyle seemed to be a random mish mash of WW and TP combined together. No overworld was to be found in Skyward.

So gamers flocked to another series instead, Elder Scrolls Skyrim. Back in the day Twilight Princess actually crushed the sales of Elder Scrolls Oblivion, open worlds had not caught on yet. But this time, Skyrim crushed Skyward Sword completely and totally. And Aonuma notes this, that gamers want to play Skyrim not Skyward. Skyward Sword sold about 3 million copies on the Wii while Skyrim sold 7 million copies in its first week alone. It was no contest.

This is the true reason Breath of the Wild went the open world route, because Nintendo wanted to hop on the money train that Skyrim was on. And not to mention its not like Breath of the Wild could have existed in the past. For their time period, Ocarina and Twilight has some of the largest open worlds for action adventure games, thats a huge reason those games sold so well for their time periods. When Skyward chose to become a more linear, puzzle heavy game with a focus on motion controls, gamers dipped out. The Wii and its motion controls had become an overused fad by that point, people wanted another realistic world to explore, and Skyrim scratched that itch, Skyward did not.

BoTW is a game that could only exist in 2017. It took another 5 years to develop, and the largest team Zelda ever had, with even Monolith coming in to help with the overworld. I mean its a truly massive game that simply would not have worked on weaker hardware, nor was the Zelda team large enough to create such a massive game.

1. " Breath of the Wild is one of the most innovative and creative Zelda games ever created. Unlike most Zelda's that play it safe, this game took Zelda where it never had been before. "

But is it really? Generally when I think of a video game being creative and innovative I think of games that have no real comparison, the first of their kind. Games like Zelda 1, Ocarina of Time, and Majora's Mask really stand out to me. When these games released there was no other video game on the market you could point to and draw comparisons. Zelda 1 transformed what a NES game could be, Ocarina help defined 3D gaming, and Majora's 3 day system and masks transformations have no equal. Even Wind Waker really set the standard for a pirate adventure on the sea.

But Breath of the Wild. Ehh maybe if you only compare it to Zelda titles does it stand out as unique and creative? But if you compare to other open world games, it kinda just blends in. I mean the climbable towers to discover more of the map, enemy base camps to approach stealth/guns blazing, gathering ingredients to make potions, the weapon durability, the fire physics, the gliding around from heights, hunting animals for food, all of these mechanics could be seen in Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3.

Generally when a video game copies another video game, people will usually say it was inspired, or worse ripping off another game. When Call of Duty took the Battle Royale system from Fortnite it was accused of ripping off Fortnite, even tho Call of Duty absolutely puts its own spin on the game mode. But when Breath of the Wild copies many, many, MANY aspects of Skyrim and Farcry its considered genius innovation of a stagnant franchise that had long overstayed its ALttP formula. Funny how that works? This double standard.

And the worst part is, not that Breath of the Wild gets undeserved praise from borrowing from other open world games, but that it unnecessarily drags old Zelda games thru the mud. Accuses them of being safe and formulaic and completely undermining all their unique qualities, just because a newer entry basically jumped genres.

And that's not the end of it either, not only did BoTW shift gears, but it seemingly created another formula that isn't going away anytime soon. Based on the newer Zelda's ,Tears and Echoes of Wisdom, they will fully commit to this design of just jumping over the entire map. I can agree as much as anyone that the grab 3 things and then Master Sword was getting old, but not all Zelda's did this ( LA, MM ). There was a way to shake up the formula without going full Ubisoft, and I definitely would be less upset if BoTW was a one time only game, but looks going forward BoTW has created the next formula that will also become the " safe, stagnant Zelda formula " in the long run, especially as Tears was the first time in history a Zelda sequel just re-used the exact same map as a previous game.