• 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 The least Zelda-like thing of BotW

Hyrulian Hero

Zelda Informer Codger
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Location
SoDak
Cooking - That's new (I think). I don't remember any other Zelda games where Link cooks items he can eat.

If we're going to call the Giant's Knife and razor "a breakable weapon mechanic", we're going to have to call a spade a spade and admit that Wins Waker had grandma's soup, Link's Awakening had a pineapple being cooked, Skyward Sword had pumpkin soup...lot of soup. Oh, and of course Yeto's soup which is a major drive throughout that whole dungeon in Twilight Princess. I really think the cooking mechanic was just an extension of Link eating apples to regain health in A Link to the Past. They wanted to bring that back and thus decided to go with food instead of hearts which then led to the cooking mechanic.

Open overworld - Nope. Zelda 1 and 2 had this. Sure both are not as nonlinear as BotW but the world was mostly open from the start.

Like OoA, OoA, WW, PH, MC, LoZ, and AL, BotW had an open overworld but the actual progression of all of the previously mentioned games were directed linear paths in which the player had little to no agency in order of progression. Every other Zelda game stands in contrast to BotW, in which the player has a much greater degree of agency, putting it (in an entirely subjective sense) in another category, that of an "open air" world.

Because of Nintendo's rhetoric and propaganda regarding BotW (masterfully handled, nothing malicious or wrong about it at all, I simply mean that they got their point drilled into our heads), we, as zelda fans, seem to have been convinced that LoZ was a glowing example of non-linear storytelling. In reality, we seem to have conflated the open air aspect of games like LoZ, Breath of the Wild, Skyrim, Far Cry 3, Shadow of the Colossus, etc. with non-linear storytelling. I feel that this is a bit of a disservice to the Zelda teams as they've done a great job (in my opinion) sliding linear stories and progression into non-linear overworlds since the very first game. I say congrats to the team for making BotW the first Zelda game with no (or at least, a bare minimum) linear progression.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
If we're going to call the Giant's Knife and razor "a breakable weapon mechanic", we're going to have to call a spade a spade and admit that Wind Waker had grandma's soup, Link's Awakening had a pineapple being cooked, Skyward Sword had pumpkin soup...lot of soup.
You are correct there. I would agree with you. That's not Link himself cooking but cooking has existed so I guess we can say cooking is now off the table as it's a re-used idea as well.

Like OoA, OoA, WW, PH, MC, LoZ, and AL, BotW had an open overworld but the actual progression of all of the previously mentioned games were directed linear paths in which the player had little to no agency in order of progression. Every other Zelda game stands in contrast to BotW, in which the player has a much greater degree of agency, putting it (in an entirely subjective sense) in another category, that of an "open air" world.
My point there was nothing about the order of progression. I was talking about the overworld itself. As in you can explore most of it from the start of the game. You don't have to collect items to be able to expore more of the overworld, like you have to in Metroid games. Zelda 2 is open in this regard but a lot less then Zelda 1. Zelda 2's overworld is open but only in sections. Zelda 1's overworld is very open. Want to visit Death Mountain before you get the sword at the start of the game? You can if you want to if you're good enough to survive long enough. Breath of the Wild is exactly like this. The only really compartmentalised area is the pleteau. Past that, you can explore almost all of the overworld right away.

Howver in reference to your separate issue of linear progression. Zelda 1 is not strictly linear at all. You have many different options in order of dungeons. Second quest has a lot less options though. In the 1st quest of Zelda 1 I always do Level-7 as early possible because it's easy and fun and Level-6 as late as possible because all those Wizzrobes makes the place really hard for me. The Zelda games you mentioned are much more linear in progression. BotW is more like Zelda 1 in this regard.

I feel that this is a bit of a disservice to the Zelda teams as they've done a great job (in my opinion) sliding linear stories and progression into non-linear overworlds since the very first game. I say congrats to the team for making BotW the first Zelda game with no (or at least, a bare minimum) linear progression.
I can't agree here. Ocarina of Time is a good example here. You're blocked from leaving the forest till you do the Deku Tree dungeon or glitch abuse. You're also blocked from entering Gerudo Town will you have the long shot, Epona or glitch abuse. Exploring the overworlds in many Zelda games is tied to the story. You are allowed to access more of the overworld as you progress the story. Not every game is like this though. Zelda 1 is the most often quoted example of this but I am sure there are others.
 

Hyrulian Hero

Zelda Informer Codger
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Location
SoDak
My point there was nothing about the order of progression. I was talking about the overworld itself. As in you can explore most of it from the start of the game. You don't have to collect items to be able to expore more of the overworld, like you have to in Metroid games. Zelda 2 is open in this regard but a lot less then Zelda 1. Zelda 2's overworld is open but only in sections. Zelda 1's overworld is very open. Want to visit Death Mountain before you get the sword at the start of the game? You can if you want to if you're good enough to survive long enough. Breath of the Wild is exactly like this. The only really compartmentalised area is the pleteau. Past that, you can explore almost all of the overworld right away.

I guess here I was more making a point about something new in Breath of the Wild, that being a much wider range of choices for order of progression. I didn't mean to say that you were wrong about the open world, although I will defend my stance that LoZ is largely compartmentalised considering that many of the dungeons (which make up literally half of the world) are, in fact, locked behind items like the bomb, the candle, or the raft. And considering that these numbered dungeons are actually intended to be played in a specific order and must be completed to complete the game, there are a great number of prerequisites which need to be met whereas there are far fewer of these in Breath of the Wild. Not to disrespect LoZ, it was an incredibly open experience with an unbelievable number of orders in which triforce pieces could be collected (not so much dungeons COMPLETED). And one must also concede that the unintended happy coincidence of the triforce pieces being available in many different orders definitely led to the breath of the wild team implementing a less rigid progression structure in Breath of the Wild. I feel that saying that Breath of the Wild is more like LoZ than ALttP in terms of linearity is akin to saying that a raspberry is more akin to a fire extinguisher than a blackberry in terms of color. Yeah, it's a totally correct statement, but it doesn't mean that the raspberry and fire extinguisher have the same purpose any more than it means that BotW and LoZ have the same linearity of progression. You're not wrong, they are MORE alike, but I see the more linear progression of LoZ and the less linear progression of BotW as being much further apart than the less linear progression of LoZ and the more linear progression of ALttP.

I can't agree here. Ocarina of Time is a good example here. You're blocked from leaving the forest till you do the Deku Tree dungeon or glitch abuse. You're also blocked from entering Gerudo Town will you have the long shot, Epona or glitch abuse. Exploring the overworlds in many Zelda games is tied to the story. You are allowed to access more of the overworld as you progress the story. Not every game is like this though. Zelda 1 is the most often quoted example of this but I am sure there are others.

I'm not so sure about this. Are you saying that you don't agree that the Zelda teams have done well at making open world games fit with linear stories? I will readily agree that most of Zelda games are not what I would consider sandbox style worlds but I would contend that they are open world. It may annoy people how parts of these open worlds are locked behind items or events, but I think the formula has worked well enough for the Zelda series and that certainly doesn't mean that the worlds are not open. Unless you want to call them partially open worlds? Which I guess I could get on board with, I just think we need to make a distinction between the game setting and the story progression. Which again, you didn't disagree with but I'm hoping to make a point that the story progression style is a fresh idea for the series.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
LoZ is largely compartmentalised considering that many of the dungeons (which make up literally half of the world) are, in fact, locked behind items like the bomb, the candle, or the raft. And considering that these numbered dungeons are actually intended to be played in a specific order and must be completed to complete the game, there are a great number of prerequisites which need to be met whereas there are far fewer of these in Breath of the Wild.
The bombs and candle are not progression blockers as you can literally buy the candle at the start of the game and you can get bombs from almost any enemy at the start of the game. The main blockers are the raft, stepladder and whistle. Also you do need the bow from Level 1 to beat the Level-6 end boss if I remember correctly. But even with this, there's still a lot of variation in what order you can do the dungeons in. Compare this with Zelda 2 where apart from the first Palace, you literally need the previous Palace's item to access and complete the next palace. It's very linear. Breath of the Wild is much more linear than both of cause. But for a 1986 game that level of progression options was a new thing that few had experienced before.
The important part is 1986. Back then open world games at all didn't exist. That's what we need to remember. Of cause by today's standards Zelda 1 not as open as many other games, but if we compare it to other games of the time it was. That's where open games started. And in the next 30 years games just got more and more open. Well not Zelda games but that's another story. Still Breath of the Wild is a very open game and that's where a lot of it's charm lies.

ALTTP is a much more linear game. And the games that followed it were also very linear. Zelda games being very linear was a trend that started from Zelda 2 and ALTTP andonly really was changed in BotW. I believe you can do the dungeons in different orders in ALBW but I've not played that much so it's only hearsay from me. You'll know if that's true.



I'm not so sure about this. Are you saying that you don't agree that the Zelda teams have done well at making open world games fit with linear stories?
I'm not saying the Zelda teams have done well or done poorly at this. I am saying however that this is not what happened at all. The worlds in most Zelda games are not open at all. In my opinion it is a linear world with a linear story. You open up access to different areas on the map as you progress the story. it's not all open at the start. In breath of the Wild when I was about to leave the Plateau, the ghost of the king told me to go visit Kakariko village. I thought to myself, **** you ghost of an old man, I'm going where I want to. That happened to be the top north west corner of the map ontop of the snow covered mountains. I did eventually go to Karariko village and got the camera rune after doing 60 shrines. I didn't know the camera rune existed till then. Breath of the Wild gives me that freedom to go where I want, when I want. That is simply not the case in almost every other Zelda game.

It may annoy people how parts of these open worlds are locked behind items or events
Having parts of the game worlds locked behind items or events is exactly what makes them not open at all.
 

Hyrulian Hero

Zelda Informer Codger
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Location
SoDak
Having parts of the game worlds locked behind items or events is exactly what makes them not open at all.

I think this may simply come down to a difference in belief or even syntax. I believe that linear storytelling does not preclude an open world. Therefore, when I buy the final triforce chart from Tingle but decide to go hit up Dragon Roost Island again because I love the music, the world seems open to me, even if there are prerequisites to accessing posts of it. You could as easily say that parts of Breath of the Wild are locked behind an "I have to push the thumb stick to get there" wall. Of course that sounds stupid but it's simply another of the varying degrees of open world.

Very little in Breath of the Wild is locked behind story progression, much in ALBW is locked behind story progression. They are both open worlds, but one has a great amount of linear progression (even though you can choose your order of linear progression), and one has a miniscule amount of linear progression.

The bombs and candle are not progression blockers as you can literally buy the candle at the start of the game and you can get bombs from almost any enemy at the start of the game. The main blockers are the raft, stepladder and whistle. Also you do need the bow from Level 1 to beat the Level-6 end boss if I remember correctly.

To be clear, parts of LoZ are locked behind certain items. This is how a game that is open world forces you into more linear gameplay (hard to call it linear story as there's very little story here). Yes, even though you can get bombs and the candle quickly, you still need to kill a monster for bombs and buy the candle with rupees you collect. It's not nearly as deep and doesn't take as long as other linear steps in other Zelda games but there is still order to some things which must be completed. Including triforce pieces, you need all of them to beat the game.

Even Breath of the Wild has this with the Great Plateau but that is the only thing standing between you and the final boss, which is also mandatory to beat the game. So I guess Breath of the Wild is also linear. I suppose I was wrong about that.

Of course that's where it probably comes down to syntax. Breath of the Wild has a very limited number of goals for its size as opposed to Legend of Zelda which has a similar number of goals for its size. And those goals leave you with an incredible amount of agency in BotW whereas the goals in LoZ leave you with little agency in LoZ (a great deal of agency for its time but we do not live in '86). The Great Plateau is the most restrictive part of BotW by far and in that way, is something of a microcosm of LoZ wherein your choices are limited and you must complete certain goals in largely prescribed ways. The content beyond the Great Plateau though, is manifold and most anything you care to do has relevance. But the thing that makes me feel that this game has a less linear story is not that there is so much content, it's that you can access this content in a myriad of ways. Want to access Hyrule Field? You'll have to get past Mido. Itching to check out those time shift stones? You've got another six hours of play before you can even think of it. Ganon slaying time? Not until you've collected all of the Triforce Pieces. Attacking a bokoblin camp? I think I'll charge straight in. Or maybe I'll chuck a bomb and draw them out. Or shoot an arrow to make them turn away so I can sneak strike them. But I could roll that boulder instead. But then I wouldn't have the sweet pleasure of surprising then from the sky! And I want to charge in on my horse so I can use my slo-mo bow! But that will rob me of the opportunity to tie an octo balloon to this explosive barrel, use my korok leaf to send it sailing, wait until it's almost above the camp, hop of the cliff and ski down the slope on my shield, and jump off and shoot the balloon with my slo-mo bow jump causing the explosive barrel to fall, enveloping my enemy in THE BURNING FLAMES OF MY UNQUENCHABLE RAGE!!!

There is a great sense of player agency in BotW. I'm not denying that there is a greater sense of player agency in LoZ than in most Zelda games (rasperries and fire extinguishers), but BotW stands out to me as a game with an astounding number of paths to most any goal.
 

Jamie

Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Gender
trans-pan-demi-ethno-christian-math-autis-genderfluid-cheesecake
People saying that a feature showing up one time in a previous game makes it a zelda-like feature is a bit silly. If there is a franchise with 100 games and one of them has a feature and the other 99 don't, saying that feature is "that franchise-like" is pretty silly.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
You could as easily say that parts of Breath of the Wild are locked behind an "I have to push the thumb stick to get there" wall.
That would make every single game in existance linear and not open if that's considered a block to exploration.

To be clear, parts of LoZ are locked behind certain items. This is how a game that is open world forces you into more linear gameplay (hard to call it linear story as there's very little story here).
Zelda 1 has a decent story. It's all written out in the printed instruction manual. It's not explained in game. Most people who didn't own the original NES cart have not read it. That's how quote a few NES games had their story protrayed to the public. Also it was a limitation of the tech of the day. Though not so in Zelda 1's case but that was a special case. Still that Zelda 1 mix up by the developers did allow 2nd quest to be a thing.

Yes, even though you can get bombs and the candle quickly, you still need to kill a monster for bombs and buy the candle with rupees you collect. It's not nearly as deep and doesn't take as long as other linear steps in other Zelda games but there is still order to some things which must be completed. Including triforce pieces, you need all of them to beat the game.
You have to beat the 4 guardian beast bosses before you can fight ganon (either in the mechanical beasts or before ganon) and both are required to beat the game. That's also a block to finishing the game. No different to requiring the 8 triforce pieces to access Level-9 in Zelda 1. Both games do have a few requirements to access the end of the game but their overworld maps are both very open. You can explore almost anywhere from the start of the game. Well BotW has the Plateau which Zelda 1 does not. You can visit Death Mountain right away there. But past the Plateau (a good tutorial area) the rest of BotW is very open.

Even Breath of the Wild has this with the Great Plateau but that is the only thing standing between you and the final boss, which is also mandatory to beat the game. So I guess Breath of the Wild is also linear. I suppose I was wrong about that.

Breath of the Wild has a very limited number of goals for its size as opposed to Legend of Zelda which has a similar number of goals for its size. And those goals leave you with an incredible amount of agency in BotW whereas the goals in LoZ leave you with little agency in LoZ (a great deal of agency for its time but we do not live in '86).
Today is not 1986 but Zelda 1 was released in 1986 so that needs to be taken into account. Breath of the Wild has tons of goals. Just most of them are optional with respect to the minimum required to finish the game. Also BotW is onw of those games where it is up to the player to choose their own goals, create their own fun within the game.

But the thing that makes me feel that this game has a less linear story is not that there is so much content, it's that you can access this content in a myriad of ways. Want to access Hyrule Field? You'll have to get past Mido. Itching to check out those time shift stones? You've got another six hours of play before you can even think of it. Ganon slaying time? Not until you've collected all of the Triforce Pieces.
Huh? I think you are mixing up Zelda 1 and Ocarine of Time here. Ocarina of Time is very linear in many ways. Zelda 1 not so much.

Attacking a bokoblin camp? I think I'll charge straight in. Or maybe I'll chuck a bomb and draw them out. Or shoot an arrow to make them turn away so I can sneak strike them. But I could roll that boulder instead. But then I wouldn't have the sweet pleasure of surprising then from the sky! And I want to charge in on my horse so I can use my slo-mo bow! But that will rob me of the opportunity to tie an octo balloon to this explosive barrel, use my korok leaf to send it sailing, wait until it's almost above the camp, hop of the cliff and ski down the slope on my shield, and jump off and shoot the balloon with my slo-mo bow jump causing the explosive barrel to fall, enveloping my enemy in THE BURNING FLAMES OF MY UNQUENCHABLE RAGE!!!
That has nothing to do with open words or non linear stories but I do agree with you that BotW has the most combat options of any Zelda game to date. One of the thnigs I really like about BotW.

People saying that a feature showing up one time in a previous game makes it a zelda-like feature is a bit silly. If there is a franchise with 100 games and one of them has a feature and the other 99 don't, saying that feature is "that franchise-like" is pretty silly.
I agree totally. However we can say most of the ideas in BotW are not totally new. They are implimented in new and innovative ways though.[/QUOTE]
 

Hyrulian Hero

Zelda Informer Codger
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Location
SoDak
That would make every single game in existance linear and not open if that's considered a block to exploration.

That's exactly my point, if we're saying that any content "locked" behind something like obtaining an item is linear storytelling (with which I can't disagree), then we are going to have to admit that there's a subjective line that separates linear from non-linear storytelling. I think we just fall on different sides of that subjective line: you believe that LoZ contained non-linear storytelling and I believe that LoZ contained linear storytelling.

Zelda 1 has a decent story. It's all written out in the printed instruction manual. It's not explained in game. Most people who didn't own the original NES cart have not read it. That's how quote a few NES games had their story protrayed to the public. Also it was a limitation of the tech of the day. Though not so in Zelda 1's case but that was a special case. Still that Zelda 1 mix up by the developers did allow 2nd quest to be a thing.

I would never disagree with this sentiment. LoZ had one of the most resonant and well-trodden stories in any media: you are the hero, adventure to save the princess from the great evil. It's a fantastic story, we need no more out of it at all, I wouldn't change a thing. The point I was making, which was unnecessary but may have been missed, is that there's very little story
there's very little story here
in LoZ. I respectfully admit it's merely my opinion that it's not much of a story and I see nothing wrong about you feeling that it is more of a story than I think it is.

You have to beat the 4 guardian beast bosses before you can fight ganon (either in the mechanical beasts or before ganon) and both are required to beat the game. That's also a block to finishing the game. No different to requiring the 8 triforce pieces to access Level-9 in Zelda 1. Both games do have a few requirements to access the end of the game but their overworld maps are both very open. You can explore almost anywhere from the start of the game. Well BotW has the Plateau which Zelda 1 does not. You can visit Death Mountain right away there. But past the Plateau (a good tutorial area) the rest of BotW is very open.

The difference in opinion here seems to be that I am looking at BotW in the context of being a game with a massive amount of content as opposed to LoZ being a game with a small amount of content yet both have comparable (although BotW may have even fewer) goals which must be accomplished in certain orders. If we are calling the four guardian beasts separate instances from the fight with Calamity Ganon, we've got to be calling each of the items required to get into LoZ levels and...I mean, completing each of the consecutively numbered levels in order to get the 8 triforce pieces within, not to mention the Silver Arrow, separate linear goals. The idea that the single set of encounters at the end of BotW and the Great Plateau (two goals by my SUBJECTIVE count) are equal to the 8 dungeons that must be traversed and six items that must be obtained to beat LoZ seems reasonable to me (even if it is 7 times fewer goals). But I am SUBJECTIVELY choosing to look at the games as wholes and when taking into consideration the amount of goals which are available in BotW, contrasted with the amount of goals available in LoZ, I see little comparison.

Today is not 1986 but Zelda 1 was released in 1986 so that needs to be taken into account. Breath of the Wild has tons of goals. Just most of them are optional with respect to the minimum required to finish the game. Also BotW is onw of those games where it is up to the player to choose their own goals, create their own fun within the game.

Absolutely agree, but my subjective opinion is that the fact that those hundreds of goals being available for tackling in any order is part of what makes the story less linear.

Huh? I think you are mixing up Zelda 1 and Ocarine of Time here. Ocarina of Time is very linear in many ways. Zelda 1 not so much.

I was referring three different Zelda games here, not just OoT. OoT had a very linear storyline imho, LoZ had a less linear storyline imho, and BotW had a FAR less linear storyline imho.

That has nothing to do with open words or non linear stories but I do agree with you that BotW has the most combat options of any Zelda game to date. One of the thnigs I really like about BotW

Out of context, it doesn't have anything to do with non-linear storytelling but in context, I was referring back to my point that every tiny step (tilting the thumb stick forward) can be mandatory in progressing the game. Yes, It's obfuscation, pure and simple, but I mean to show that we each draw our subjective conclusions as to what constitutes linear gameplay and what constitutes open world gameplay. I believe that the options for progressing the story in BotW are greater in number than the options for progressing the story in LoZ and I respect your right to the opinion that the opposite is true.

Perhaps the disharmony in our respective ideas was my fault as I lost track of the point of the post. See, I saw,
What part of BotW do you look at or do and say 'this is not Zelda'?
and read, "What things are new to the Zelda formula in BotW?" Of course, nothing about this game seems non-Zelda to me (I'm a little iffy about the Master Cycle). I merely think SUBJECTIVELY that BotW has a less linear storyline than any previous Zelda game, part of the inspiration for which definitely came from LoZ.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 11, 2011
The breakable weapons - Someone said there were breakable weapons in OOT and MM. The giant's knife is a one-off/anomaly, and shields burning fair enough, but in BOTW it's a massive thing that drives the entire gameplay in terms of combat. You can't ever permanently own an item, like a hookshot or bow, it's all breakable weapons bar the master sword.

The shrines - In past zelda games, it was mostly easy to distinguish what mini-dungeons were, but the shrines completely throw that logic out of the window. Are the shrines mini-dungeons? Some could qualify, but many wouldn't. And there's 120 of them. This is completely unlike usual zelda games.

Those are the big 2.

Other things to mention:

The dungeons - Too small and too mechanical and barely have any enemies.

Cooking - But really that's just a substitute for hearts/bottles, done in a different way.

Jumping - I know roc's feather/cape exists, but this is worth a mention. And TAOL is not your 'usual' zelda game, so using that for the jumping argument doesn't work for me.

The Motorcycle - I've not done the dlc, so can't comment on this, but obviously there's never been anything like this in zelda before. Trains are not a good example, because trains are unusual in zelda too.

But yes, the main 2 for me, are the breakable weapons and the shrines.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom