• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Breath of the Wild Is BotW the "spiritual successor" to Zelda 1?

The Bread Pirate

Youtuber/Student/Christian
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
The Milk Bar
Gender
Pirate
Zelda 1 had structure to it. It had set objectives that were required to progress. Exploration was what the entire game was all about, and you were not only encouraged to explore, you were required to explore. There were major places that you couldn’t even reach without exploring around, and those areas were your reward for finding the correct item or ability.

BotW in contrast has no structure to it at all, and you are never required to explore anything, or are even really motivated to by the game. Everything is unlocked as soon as you finish the great plateau, and everything that isn’t unlocked is such a minuscule thing that they never have any bearing on how you play the game.

None of these are necessarily bad things in a video game. I’m not the biggest fan of how BotW handles it, but they can be done well in games. Still, to say that BotW is similar to Zelda 1 is, blatantly put, wrong. In the way the world and exploration are designed, BotW is more similar to Skyrim or even Minecraft than any Zelda game.
My word, you've put to words what I haven't been able to explain to myself for the last year! :D

I think it comes down to item progression as well since BotW doesn't allow the player to find items in the overworld that unlock new abilities or make new areas accessible (yah know, cause all the areas of the game are already accessible).

We could also talk about BotW's emphasis on "statistical player progression" versus Zelda 1's "mechanical player progression". Simply put, it's more fun to get a new item that gives the player more abilities rather than getting a heart piece or a sword that does +2 damage.

(Man this conversation bums me out. I hope BotW2 incorporates some of this stuff.)
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2021
Location
Freedom Land
Sort of agree, sort of don't. Botw definitely has the most freedom like in the original NES game but it's much too modern for me to say it doesn't take most of the feel of the 3D Zelda games. I mostly agree, but it was thanks to games like Oot, Ww, and Tp that Botw even took the form it did.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Gender
Male
In response to the OP, I've heard the same argument that BoTW was a "back to roots" Zelda game to justify the lack of structure, story and progression we've gotten in most Zelda games.

I've never played Zelda 1 more than a few minutes, but the intro feels very much like BoTW where you're dropped into the world with no explanation and given just enough to get started (a sword in Zelda 1, the runes and glider in BoTW) and sent on your way. However, I got the impression that in Zelda 1, even though there were good sized areas you could explore right away, you still needed some items from dungeons to access later game areas, the entire map wasn't completely wide open right from the start like in BoTW.

Personally, I think this lack of structure was a huge mistake on Nintendo's part. Sure, some of the Zelda games (especially TP) were a bit overbearing in restricting the player early on and took a long time to really open up, but BoTW has so little that it causes it's own host of problems.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Gender
Manly man
I believe it's been said by Aonuma and other people involved with the game that they wanted to go back to the series' roots of explorative freedom with Breath of the Wild, obviously. So there was a lot that they drew from regarding The Legend of Zelda, but then again, every game was an evolution of that in some aspect – not just BotW.

Good point; I also feel like a lot of people forget that BotW brought back and--in some cases-- expanded upon alot of the gameplay mechanics of previous Zelda games outside of Zelda 1;

-Using the weapons of your enemies like in TWW is now tied to the core gameplay loop of BotW

-Different outfits with different benefits like in TFH

-Bosses with multiple ways to attack them other then the ''use dungeon item on boss, then hit while stunned'', like in the first three games

-Hyrule Castle is a dungeon with an explorative focus like the dungeons in games like Zelda 1 and ALttP, with alot of loot to be found and many ways to go about it

-TP's horseback combat returns only with some of BotW's bells and whistles

-Durability for shields from SS, only now it also applies to weapons

-Enemy camps are pretty much the lookout platforms from TWW, only even better due to the varied combat options in BotW

-NPCs having active schedules throughout the day like in MM

-The four main dungeons let you change the shape of them like Stone Tower Temple in MM
 
Last edited:

thePlinko

What’s the character limit on this? Aksnfiskwjfjsk
ZD Legend
-Bosses with multiple ways to attack them other then the ''use dungeon item on boss, then hit while stunned'', like in the first three games
Ok but, Zelda 1 and 3 did require dungeon items to kill certain bosses. Hell even carock and the thunderbird required the spell you got directly before their respective dungeon. A better example would’ve been MM

-Hyrule Castle is a dungeon with an explorative focus like the dungeons in games like Zelda 1 and ALttP, with alot of loot to be found and many ways to go about it

Zelda 1 and 3 didn’t do that at all. Each games final dungeon in particular had incredibly linear approaches to them. Sure in Zelda 1 there were a ton of split paths, but unlike Hyrule castle in BotW they were all complete dead ends. There was a single path to Ganon that you had to take. The only thing that kinda resembles a choice in a path is that in LttP you got to chose whether to go left or right first in Ganons tower, and even then you still had to go to the other side when you were done.


-The four main dungeons let you change the shape of them like Stone Tower Temple in MM
Wow, your body must be nice and limber after that huge stretch. I mean, yeah I guess they were similar in concept, but I have a hard time believing that the divine beasts took any inspiration from STT, especially since the later treats the flipped version like it’s a completely separate dungeon unlike the former.


Aside from those 3 things, I can see where you’re coming from. Obviously certain aspects of the game are taken from previous entries, however I’d still argue that the general design philosophy is completely different from every other game in the series.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Gender
Manly man
Ok but, Zelda 1 and 3 did require dungeon items to kill certain bosses. Hell even carock and the thunderbird required the spell you got directly before their respective dungeon. A better example would’ve been MM

Some bosses, yes, but alot of bosses like Helmasaur King, Mothula, Kholdstare, Aquamentus, etc. gave you choices. Good point about MM though.

Zelda 1 and 3 didn’t do that at all. Each games final dungeon in particular had incredibly linear approaches to them. Sure in Zelda 1 there were a ton of split paths, but unlike Hyrule castle in BotW they were all complete dead ends. There was a single path to Ganon that you had to take. The only thing that kinda resembles a choice in a path is that in LttP you got to chose whether to go left or right first in Ganons tower, and even then you still had to go to the other side when you were done.

I mean, BotW gives it a twist around the open world philosophy, but mostly same kind of deal. Also, regardless of how you choose to tackle the castle, you end up encountering Calamity Ganon in the sanctum, so in a way, the non linearity there is also an illusion, even if there's differences between how Zelda 1/ALttP and BotW handles them.

Wow, your body must be nice and limber after that huge stretch. I mean, yeah I guess they were similar in concept, but I have a hard time believing that the divine beasts took any inspiration from STT, especially since the later treats the flipped version like it’s a completely separate dungeon unlike the former.

The flipped version isn't treated like a different dungeon; the main boss of STT is found in the flipped version, and there is no boss in the unflipped version. They're just two different configurations of the same dungeon.

side from those 3 things, I can see where you’re coming from. Obviously certain aspects of the game are taken from previous entries, however I’d still argue that the general design philosophy is completely different from every other game in the series.

To quote what I said about BotW in the unpopular opinions board as to why it follows the Zelda formula more than people think:

BotW is one of the best games in the series, and the idea that it's fundamentally that different to the other games in the series is unfounded. The game has an overworld that you traverse/explore, and it has dungeons where you navigate through and solve puzzles in to fight a boss, and upon defeating said boss you obtain a HC. It also has sidequests, etc. It follows the Zelda formula just like any other game, only focusing more on certain elements of the formula which is something most other Zelda games do. For example, MM focuses on sidequests, Zelda 2 focuses on navigation and combat, SS focuses more on dungeon content than ever before to the point where even the overworld feels like a dungeon at times, and BotW focuses more on open exploration and puzzles/riddles. In regards to the open exploration part, BotW isn't even the first game to focus on this; Zelda 1 and ALBW have open exploration as well, and there's elements of it in ALttP and TWW too. Just because Nintendo decided to focus on different elements of the Zelda formula for this game like they do for other games in the series doesn't mean that not all elements of the formula are there to some extent, nor is BotW a bad game because it doesn't focus as much on the elements you would've preferred.
 

thePlinko

What’s the character limit on this? Aksnfiskwjfjsk
ZD Legend
Some bosses, yes, but alot of bosses like Helmasaur King, Mothula, Kholdstare, Aquamentus, etc. gave you choices. Good point about MM though.
For that matter, OoT does the same thing. It’s another example of an aspect of the game that’s kinda sorta similar to something in the past, but was by no means taken from it.


I mean, BotW gives it a twist around the open world philosophy, but mostly same kind of deal. Also, regardless of how you choose to tackle the castle, you end up encountering Calamity Ganon in the sanctum, so in a way, the non linearity there is also an illusion, even if there's differences between how Zelda 1/ALttP and BotW handles them.
Yes, there is linearity in the fact that there is a definite ending, but that there’s almost nothing similar between the design philosophy of Hyrule Castle and various dungeons in previous games. Zelda was never about carving your own path, it was about exploring until you found the right path. That’s also why I fundamentally disagree with your quote at the end. Every single dungeon in the series, all the way back to Zelda 1, has had a set path to take, with very little deviation in order to get from point A to point B. It’s just a matter of finding that path. Hyrule Castle is nothing like that. You can take whatever path you want and still make it to Ganon. It’s not about the destination, it’s about the journey, and that’s the fundamental difference between BotW and every other game in the series, barring none.


The flipped version isn't treated like a different dungeon; the main boss of STT is found in the flipped version, and there is no boss in the unflipped version. They're just two different configurations of the same dungeon.
I was more talking about the fact that the 2 versions of STT were separate locations that you visited independently. They have completely different maps in the games code, more similar to Skull Woods in LttP then any of the dungeons in BotW. STT is less about manipulating the dungeon to fit your needs, and more about finding what changes about the dungeon when you change its orientation.


To quote what I said about BotW in the unpopular opinions board as to why it follows the Zelda formula more than people think:

Like I said before, I completely disagree. You’re focusing on the aspects of Zelda that don’t necessarily relate to Zelda. One of the key defining aspects of a Zelda game is the fact that there’s very little deviation in the path you take to finish the game. Zelda games are inherently linear, including Zelda 1. The most you ever saw change in the way you finished the game was the order you completed the mandatory dungeons, and even then, before BotW there wasn’t a single title that let you complete the dungeons in any order.

That doesn’t detract from exploration. Like I said, it was never about exploring to make your own path, it was about exploring to find the correct path. Saying that BotW is in any way similar to previous titles in this regard is simply incorrect. That’s why, while it’s a decent game by itself, it’s a very mediocre Zelda game.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Gender
Manly man
For that matter, OoT does the same thing. It’s another example of an aspect of the game that’s kinda sorta similar to something in the past, but was by no means taken from it.

I know that Gohma lets you stun her with either the Deku Nuts or Slingshot, but aside from that, the other bosses in OoT follow the ''use dungeon item then hit while stunned philosophy''.

Yes, there is linearity in the fact that there is a definite ending, but that there’s almost nothing similar between the design philosophy of Hyrule Castle and various dungeons in previous games. Zelda was never about carving your own path, it was about exploring until you found the right path. That’s also why I fundamentally disagree with your quote at the end. Every single dungeon in the series, all the way back to Zelda 1, has had a set path to take, with very little deviation in order to get from point A to point B. It’s just a matter of finding that path. Hyrule Castle is nothing like that. You can take whatever path you want and still make it to Ganon. It’s not about the destination, it’s about the journey, and that’s the fundamental difference between BotW and every other game in the series, barring none.

I wasn't arguing that the design philosophy of HC in BotW is a 1:1 translation of the design philosophy of explorative based dungeons in previous games. Just that the fact that it has an explorative focus rather than a puzzle based one, making it based on(but not necessarily equivalent to) those past titles. Also, even back in Zelda 1, there were multiple ways of getting to the end in some of the dungeons; The Moon, for example, is a dungeon that you can beat without going through a locked door(and thus, saving your keys) if you use bombs to go through bombable passageways, going around the path that would make you use keys. So saying that every single dungeon in the series had a set path is objectively false.

I was more talking about the fact that the 2 versions of STT were separate locations that you visited independently. They have completely different maps in the games code, more similar to Skull Woods in LttP then any of the dungeons in BotW. STT is less about manipulating the dungeon to fit your needs, and more about finding what changes about the dungeon when you change its orientation

I mean, there ARE things that change about the DBs in BotW when you alter their shape. Maybe not on the same scale, but again, I'm not necessarily arguing that the dungeons in BotW are a 1:1 translation of the design philosophy of STT.

Like I said before, I completely disagree. You’re focusing on the aspects of Zelda that don’t necessarily relate to Zelda. One of the key defining aspects of a Zelda game is the fact that there’s very little deviation in the path you take to finish the game. Zelda games are inherently linear, including Zelda 1. The most you ever saw change in the way you finished the game was the order you completed the mandatory dungeons, and even then, before BotW there wasn’t a single title that let you complete the dungeons in any order.

And before OoT, there wasn't a single 3D Zelda game. Does that mean that OoT wasn't a real Zelda? There can be a first time for new ideas in the series. Zelda has never been afraid of new ideas. There's also some linearity in BotW; you need to complete the Great Plateau before accessing the rest of the game, you need to complete the Yiga Hideout(which itself is fairly linear) and retrieve the Thunder Helm before you access a certain dungeon in the game, complete certain dungeons to gain access to certain shrines, etc. I also disagree with ''little deviation in the path'' being one of the key defining aspects; there were many islands you could explore in TWW before you had to, optional side quests that could be completed at a variety of points within the games, etc. in addition to having flexibility in dungeon order in some titles.

I personally see Exploration, Overworld, Dungeons, Items, Side Quests, and Combat to be the elements that make up the Zelda formula at its core. Going by this criteria, there are other games in the series that actually follow the Zelda formula less than BotW in multiple aspects.
 
Last edited:

thePlinko

What’s the character limit on this? Aksnfiskwjfjsk
ZD Legend
I know that Gohma lets you stun her with either the Deku Nuts or Slingshot, but aside from that, the other bosses in OoT follow the ''use dungeon item then hit while stunned philosophy''.
King Dodongo can be defeated without specifically using the bomb bag but with the bomb flowers and goron bracelets instead, Phantom Ganon and Bongo Bongo you can choose between the bow or Hookshot, Ganon himself requires nothing at all, and I think Barinade can be defeated without the boomerang. The only OoT bosses the hard require their respective items are Volvagia, Morpha, and Twinrova (which is actually a fewer amount of bosses than Zelda 1 BTW).


I wasn't arguing that the design philosophy of HC in BotW is a 1:1 translation of the design philosophy of explorative based dungeons in previous games. Just that the fact that it has an explorative focus rather than a puzzle based one, making it based on(but not necessarily equivalent to) those past titles. Also, even back in Zelda 1, there were multiple ways of getting to the end in some of the dungeons; The Moon, for example, is a dungeon that you can beat without going through a locked door(and thus, saving your keys) if you use bombs to go through cracked doors, going around the path that would make you use keys. So saying that every single dungeon in the series had a set path is objectively false.
Ok, fine. I’ll give you that Zelda 1 was slightly less focused on puzzles than other entries. It still has more of a focus on it than you’re giving it credit for but ok.

However, the moon is still a dungeon with a rather linear path. It still requires you to enter one of 2 rooms in each segment. Yes it’s one of the less strict dungeons, but there’s still a path that is needed in order to finish. It’s not like Hyrule Castle, where it doesn’t matter which rooms you enter. You have a choice, but it’s incredibly limited.


I mean, there ARE things that change about the DBs in BotW when you alter their shape. Maybe not on the same scale, but again, I'm not necessarily arguing that the dungeons in BotW are a 1:1 translation of the design philosophy of STT.
Not in the same way. When you alter a divine beast, it’s less about changing the map, it’s about taking advantage of BotWs physics engine. In MM, flipping the tower doesn’t require the same kind of planning and thoughtfulness as rotating a bird in order to make the gravity weird and flip a switch.

While you’re not arguing that it’s 1:1, you are arguing that the divine beasts are somehow similar in mechanical concept to STT, which they’re not.


And before OoT, there wasn't a single 3D Zelda game. Does that mean that OoT wasn't a real Zelda? There can be a first time for new ideas in the series. Zelda has never been afraid of new ideas.
The fact that it’s in 3D has nothing to do with the design philosophy of the game, at least in terms of exploration or mechanics. Yes, many of the mechanics had to be adapted to fit in 3D, but they are still at their core the same mechanics and philosophy. In fact, I’d argue that OoT and LttP are some of the most similar games in the franchise mechanically. A better comparison would be going from Super Mario World to Super Mario 64. Those 2 games are almost nothing alike in their structure, even if their mechanics are relatively similar. That doesn’t mean that one is worse than the other, but you can’t really compare the 2 in the same way. No, Mario 64 isn’t a bad game by any stretch, but it does do a horrible job at replicating what previous titles do but in 3D.




There's also some linearity in BotW; you need to complete the Great Plateau before accessing the rest of the game, you need to complete the Yiga Hideout(which itself is fairly linear) and retrieve the Thunder Helm before you access a certain dungeon in the game, complete certain dungeons to gain access to certain shrines, etc. I also disagree with ''little deviation in the path'' being one of the key defining aspects; there were many islands you could explore in TWW before you had to, optional side quests that could be completed at a variety of points within the games, etc. in addition to have flexibility in dungeon order in some titles.

I personally see Exploration, Overworld, Dungeons, Items, Side Quests, and Combat to be the elements that make up the Zelda formula at its core. Going by this criteria, there are other games in the series that actually follow the Zelda formula less than BotW in multiple aspects.

Yes, there’s linearity in sidequests. That’s what the divine beasts are. Sidequests. However, there is barely any sort of structure when it comes to actually beating the game. In every other Zelda game, there are requirements that need to be completed in order to beat the game, with no way of circumventing them. Sidequests and optional content are completely irrelevant when it comes to the amount of deviation, so your WW point doesn’t matter. What does matter is what is required to beat the game, and BotW barely has anything outside of the tutorial.
I personally see Exploration, Overworld, Dungeons, Items, Side Quests, and Combat to be the elements that make up the Zelda formula at its core. Going by this criteria, there are other games in the series that actually follow the Zelda formula less than BotW in multiple aspects.
The multiplayer games are the only ones that really fit that. Even then, their item systems and dungeons are distinctly more similar to the Zelda formula than BotW.

I’d also disagree with the idea that combat and sidequests are as important as you say they are. Yes, they are important, but the amount of focus given to them and the method in which each title has accomplished them have always varied. Exploration, dungeons, items, and the overworld(with an exception of SSs overworld), have always been rather consistent with how they were handled up until BotW.

It’s not enough for them to be there, they also have to be implemented in a rather similar way.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Gender
Manly man
King Dodongo can be defeated without specifically using the bomb bag but with the bomb flowers and goron bracelets instead, Phantom Ganon and Bongo Bongo you can choose between the bow or Hookshot, Ganon himself requires nothing at all, and I think Barinade can be defeated without the boomerang. The only OoT bosses the hard require their respective items are Volvagia, Morpha, and Twinrova (which is actually a fewer amount of bosses than Zelda 1 BTW).

Whether you use bombs form your bomb bag or bomb flowers, you're still essentially defeating KD the same way regardless; those two methods don't require you to engage with the boss in a different way or mindset. I forgot about being able to use the Hookshot for PG and BB though. I'm pretty sure you need the Boomerang to slay Barinade, however. And you do need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon; IIRC, if you keep hitting his tail with any other weapon after retrieving the MS, he won't fall down again until you use the MS.

Look at Helmsaur King, for example; you can use the hammer or bombs in the first phase. Using bombs allows you to place a bomb near his mask then back away, but you use resources that way, and he might move away before the bomb can go off. If you use the hammer, then you're not using up any resources, but it's riskier because there's a higher chance of contact damage. In the second phase, you can use the sword or the arrows. Again using arrows is less risky, but uses resources and is harder to hit him with. Using the sword is poses more of a risk, especially with how fast he moves in this phase, but doesn't use resources. The strategy you choose to utilize changes the way you engage with the boss, and is dependent on the player's playstyle.

Ok, fine. I’ll give you that Zelda 1 was slightly less focused on puzzles than other entries. It still has more of a focus on it than you’re giving it credit for but ok.

I mean, literally the only puzzle I can think of in Zelda 1 is occasionally pushing a single block to open a door or access a stairway...

Not in the same way. When you alter a divine beast, it’s less about changing the map, it’s about taking advantage of BotWs physics engine. In MM, flipping the tower doesn’t require the same kind of planning and thoughtfulness as rotating a bird in order to make the gravity weird and flip a switch.

While you’re not arguing that it’s 1:1, you are arguing that the divine beasts are somehow similar in mechanical concept to STT, which they’re not.

I mean, let's break it down:

The dungeons in BotW require you to alter the shape of them to complete them.(aside from Medoh, which CAN actually be beaten without obtaining the map)

STT requires you to alter the shape of it to complete it.

I'll be the first to admit that due to the execution, this point might be a bit of a stretch compared to the other ones mentioned.. At the same time, though, with all the other gameplay related concepts that take after other Zelda games in BotW, I wouldn't put it past them if the base point of ''change dungeon to progress'' was a wink to MM.

The fact that it’s in 3D has nothing to do with the design philosophy of the game, at least in terms of exploration or mechanics. Yes, many of the mechanics had to be adapted to fit in 3D, but they are still at their core the same mechanics and philosophy. In fact, I’d argue that OoT and LttP are some of the most similar games in the franchise mechanically. A better comparison would be going from Super Mario World to Super Mario 64. Those 2 games are almost nothing alike in their structure, even if their mechanics are relatively similar. That doesn’t mean that one is worse than the other, but you can’t really compare the 2 in the same way. No, Mario 64 isn’t a bad game by any stretch, but it does do a horrible job at replicating what previous titles do but in 3D.

Z-Targeting was a mechanic introduces in OoT, which hadn't appeared in any other Zelda game, though I get your point, so I won't argue the point about OoT any further.

I would argue that SM64 was a WAY bigger departure from previous Mario platformers than BotW is from the previous Zelda titles, however, and no one has tried to argue that SM64 isn't a ''real'' Mario game, to my knowledge.

Yes, there’s linearity in sidequests. That’s what the divine beasts are. Sidequests. However, there is barely any sort of structure when it comes to actually beating the game. In every other Zelda game, there are requirements that need to be completed in order to beat the game, with no way of circumventing them. Sidequests and optional content are completely irrelevant when it comes to the amount of deviation, so your WW point doesn’t matter. What does matter is what is required to beat the game, and BotW barely has anything outside of the tutorial

Sorry, but BotW itself disagrees with you; the game has the ''Divine Beasts'' under Main Quests, not Side Quests. If you mean to say that it's effectively a side quest due to it not being required to defeat Ganon, well, you cn't get the complete ending without the DBs. Can you really say you've beaten the game if you don't get the full ending? Also, I'm pretty damn sure first time players aren't expected to run to HC right off the bat.

The multiplayer games are the only ones that really fit that. Even then, their item systems and dungeons are distinctly more similar to the Zelda formula than BotW.

The multiplayer titles literally have NO overworld whatsoever, or any sidequests. I would also argue that PH and ST have a very minimal overworld as they're both on rails(literally in the case of ST), which also leads to exploration being rather lacking.

It’s not enough for them to be there, they also have to be implemented in a rather similar way.

Alot of them are, though. The main dungeons are accessed by visiting the areas that serve as the domain of different races, with the dungeons having to be solved to solve whatever problems they have like in other games, With the dungeons themselves having puzzles solving with some combat(although the combat isn't given as much focus in these dungeons), with a boss that you defeat at the end that gives you a Heart Container like other dungeon bosses(Zelda 2, interestingly, doesn't have that happen when a dungeon boss is defeated), an overworld ripe with exploration like Zelda 1, ALttP, TWW, ALBW, etc. Progression related to items/abilities is the only thing that is doone fairly differently, and even then, there is SOME progression, like the Zora Armour allowing you to swim up waterfalls, the Champion abilities, etc.

Also, I would add ''puzzles'' to the formula now that I've thought about it, and BotW has some of the best puzzles in the series yet IMO.
 

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit
Is Breath of the Wild the "spiritual successor" to Zelda 1?

I am not sure where I first heard BotW referred to in this way, but I believe it was around the time of E3 2016 when Eiji Aonuma was giving out interviews all over the place.

But is this true? BotW and Zelda 1 have a lot of differences after all!

I made a video on my Youtube channel to cover the subject (and express my thoughts)...


But I'm really curious about what you guys think? (You guys usually have diverse opinions on BotW after all.)


I wouldn't call it a spiritual successor. It's too different.

Usually when I think of spiritual successor I think of something that brings back the feel and spirit of the thing that came before but Zelda 1 was such a basic 2D game. BoTW feels more like assassin's creed than it does Zelda 1.
 

thePlinko

What’s the character limit on this? Aksnfiskwjfjsk
ZD Legend
Whether you use bombs form your bomb bag or bomb flowers, you're still essentially defeating KD the same way regardless; those two methods don't require you to engage with the boss in a different way or mindset. I forgot about being able to use the Hookshot for PG and BB though. I'm pretty sure you need the Boomerang to slay Barinade, however. And you do need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon; IIRC, if you keep hitting his tail with any other weapon after retrieving the MS, he won't fall down again until you use the MS.
Yes, I admit that my point about King Dodongo was a technicality at best, and the boomerang is actually required for barinade.

However, saying that the master sword is required for Ganon is like saying that a sword is required for him in Zelda 1. That’s still your main method of attack, you’re never going to not have it, and it’s only required for the final blow with a cutscene. Hell, at least you can damage him without the Master Sword unlike in LttP. I’ll give you Barinade and King Dodongo, but Ganon is a huge stretch.

so in total, the amount of bosses that require items in OoT is 5 (King Dodongo, Barinade, Volvagia, Morpha, Twinrova), as opposed to Zelda 1s 4 (Gohma, Dodongo, Digdoger, Ganon). While yes, that’s higher, it’s still a very comparable number.

Look at Helmsaur King, for example; you can use the hammer or bombs in the first phase. Using bombs allows you to place a bomb near his mask then back away, but you use resources that way, and he might move away before the bomb can go off. If you use the hammer, then you're not using up any resources, but it's riskier because there's a higher chance of contact damage. In the second phase, you can use the sword or the arrows. Again using arrows is less risky, but uses resources and is harder to hit him with. Using the sword is poses more of a risk, especially with how fast he moves in this phase, but doesn't use resources. The strategy you choose to utilize changes the way you engage with the boss, and is dependent on the player's playstyle.
The same could be said for every listed OoT boss. Hell even Volvagia can be damaged in multiple ways without the hammer, you just need it to set a single flag.


I mean, literally the only puzzle I can think of in Zelda 1 is occasionally pushing a single block to open a door or access a stairway...
Most of them were on the overworld. Navigating the dead woods, continuing up until you reached level 5, playing the recorder on the lake to reach level 7, stuff like that. Even still there were a handful of puzzles in the dungeons that involved finding secret rooms or using the bait on the hungry goriya.


I mean, let's break it down:

The dungeons in BotW require you to alter the shape of them to complete them.(aside from Medoh, which CAN actually be beaten without obtaining the map)

STT requires you to alter the shape of it to complete it.

I'll be the first to admit that due to the execution, this point might be a bit of a stretch compared to the other ones mentioned.. At the same time, though, with all the other gameplay related concepts that take after other Zelda games in BotW, I wouldn't put it past them if the base point of ''change dungeon to progress'' was a wink to MM.
In basic concept they’re similar, yes, but they’re implemented in such drastically different ways that I highly doubt that it was any sort of homage to MM.


I would argue that SM64 was a WAY bigger departure from previous Mario platformers than BotW is from the previous Zelda titles, however, and no one has tried to argue that SM64 isn't a ''real'' Mario game, to my knowledge.
SM64 and BotW both have completely different structures of progression from previous titles in their respective series, the world design is insanely different (SM64 had a mute larger emphasis on exploration, while BotWs focused on being almost sandbox like in design), both had movement and a control setup that no game in the series had even come close to utilizing, id say that BotW is just as much of a departure from Zelda as SM64 is from Mario.

And yes, i would absolutely argue that at the time, SM64 was not in anyway similar to the rest of the franchise. I’ve met numerous people who consider 2D and 3D Mario to be completely different series due to how drastically different they are, as I imagine is going to be the case with BotW and it’s sequels eventually.


Sorry, but BotW itself disagrees with you; the game has the ''Divine Beasts'' under Main Quests, not Side Quests. If you mean to say that it's effectively a side quest due to it not being required to defeat Ganon, well, you cn't get the complete ending without the DBs. Can you really say you've beaten the game if you don't get the full ending? Also, I'm pretty damn sure first time players aren't expected to run to HC right off the bat.
It doesn’t matter what BotW says. Anything that isn’t required to beat the game, by definition, is a sidequest. True endings also aren’t required to beat the game, otherwise the masks in MM would be considered mandatory, and don’t even think about dying in LA if you want to actually beat the game.

Just the fact that the game expects you to do this sidequest in particular is another way that BotW has a completely different design philosophy than previous titles.


The multiplayer titles literally have NO overworld whatsoever, or any sidequests. I would also argue that PH and ST have a very minimal overworld as they're both on rails(literally in the case of ST), which also leads to exploration being rather lacking.
Yeah, that’s why I said that the multiplayer titles are the ones I’d agree with you on.

However, the traversal of the overworld in the DS games isn’t as linear as you’re making it out to be, nor is any explanation hindered by it. Yes, ST does restrict where you can go to rails, but those rails still go everywhere, and you’re still exploring which one is the best way to get to where you need to go. I’ll give you that they are a departure from the main series in terms of navigation, but they still generally follow the same concept of “exploring to find the path” and not “exploring to make a path” that BotW utilizes.


Alot of them are, though. The main dungeons are accessed by visiting the areas that serve as the domain of different races, with the dungeons having to be solved to solve whatever problems they have like in other games, With the dungeons themselves having puzzles solving with some combat(although the combat isn't given as much focus in these dungeons), with a boss that you defeat at the end that gives you a Heart Container like other dungeon bosses(Zelda 2, interestingly, doesn't have that happen when a dungeon boss is defeated), an overworld ripe with exploration like Zelda 1, ALttP, TWW, ALBW, etc. Progression related to items/abilities is the only thing that is doone fairly differently, and even then, there is SOME progression, like the Zora Armour allowing you to swim up waterfalls, the Champion abilities, etc.
Similar in story structure, maybe, but in mechanical structure the dungeons in BotW have almost nothing in common with dungeons in every other title.

You mention that the items are utilized differently, but item progression and dungeon design go hand in hand. Every dungeon in previous titles, has had a singular item (or in very rare cases 2) that is almost always required for traversal. The dungeons themselves weren’t the part people liked, it was the items you got within them that completely changed the way you played the game. After Zelda 2, it became the general design choice for each dungeon to become a tutorial for their respective item (even in Zelda 1 and 2, there were a few items that their respective dungeons revolved around), allowing you to play with each of them in a controlled environment, just to let you loose on the world and utilize them. It wasn’t always perfect, TP in particular had it’s dungeons items become completely worthless as soon as you left, with the dominion rod literally falling apart afterwards, but that was a design choice that held every game together until

In BotW, the closest thing to a dungeon item, something that is integral to Zeldas dungeon design, are the champions abilities. Even then, none of them are ever utilized in their Dungeons. The dungeons would’ve been significantly better and more akin to a normal Zelda game if you got the abilities towards the beginning of the dungeon, and if the dungeon design revolved around it. Not necessarily making them required, but making it the intended solution to each puzzle. Of course this would only really work with Revali and Urbosas abilities, but the point still stands that the Divine Beasts share no design concepts with those of the rest of the franchise.


Also, I would add ''puzzles'' to the formula now that I've thought about it, and BotW has some of the best puzzles in the series yet IMO.
Puzzles are important, and for the most part BotW handles them in a very similar fashion, I will concede that point. Calling BotWs “the best,” however, is debatable. They’re pretty great at first, however the vast majority of them are just “how do I abuse the physics engine to get [X] object to [Y] position.” Hell, every single one of the Korok turds falls into one of a handful of “puzzles.” They’re alright, but there’s almost no variety.
 
Joined
May 4, 2014
Location
California
A spiritual successor is something done for the love of and in the spirit of a thing. But they are their own unique brand.

The Messenger is a spiritual successor to the original Ninja Garden games. Mighty No. 9 and Azure Striker Gunvolt are spiritual successors to Mega Man. Bloodstained to Castlevania. Yooka-laylee to Banjo Kazooie and so on.

Breath isn't a spiritual successor, as much as an attempted return to what the series started as. It's more akin to something like Sonic Mania.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom