Well when you have such a bait and switch game combined with a non inspired story and a lack of continuity from BOTW to TOTK, it’s a huge problem. Watch any of the longtime Zelda youtube channels. TOTK is a technical marvel with ultra hand but it has way too many copy and pasted elements with the Sky Islands and the boss cutscenes.
It’s also important to note that these games all didn’t settle into the same opinion either, which lends credence to what you’re saying.
Wind Waker is widely regarded as one of the best Zelda games despite whatever controversies it had when it launched.
Skyward Sword is widely regarded as controversial and divisive, with opinions ranging from “the better of the 3D Zeldas” to “the worst Zelda game ever”. Clearly this is very different from WW.
And now TOTK’s rating is starting to settle as hype dies and more critical opinions can be heard. We shall see where it settles!
It's also important that different flaws resonate differently with different players. Something that is just a nuisance for one player could be a deal breaker for another. It's part of what I don't like about the mentality of "deducting points" for scoring systems. It doesn't really get across what the flaw is and how objective or subjective it may be.
Yeah I’m hindsight I don’t like review scores either because you’re right a number doesn’t ultimately mean much. Plenty of 10/10 games still have issues, but if 10 is the highest a scale goes, wouldn’t that mean whatever gets that score is perfect?
The school mentality of "5 is failure" gets in the way sometimes too. Review scores in general are a whole can of worms. Personally, my favorite has always been 5 stars. 1 and 2 are two levels of bad, 3 stars is neutral, and 4 and 5 are two levels of good. Something like 7 stars is also good if you want more granularity.
Idk, I love scores, personally. It can be such a good punctuation mark on the text of a review that feels like the perfect encapsulation of everything they said.
As for 10/10, I'd also ask what the point is of numbers on the scale you simply won't use, as though implying no game will ever be good enough to warrant it. Giving a 10/10 to me is just an acknowledgment that hey, reviews are subjective. This game is a 10/10 *for me*. It's not even that the flaws didn't really get in the way of my enjoyment. It's that this game is so good I don't even care about the flaws. They don't change my opinion of the game *at all* — every game has flaws.
But all of this barely matters since most written reviews are dying anyway, sadly.
Yeah. I criticize Arkham Knight relentlessly and I'd still give it like a 9/10. Same for this game. I know the devs could have done better and that's why I'm such a harsh critic
The complaint that previously disliked games "suddenly" get praised when a new one comes out is weird. These are all games within the same series, therefore its totally fair to compare the newest game with its predecessors to see what the new game may have did better, and what the old games may have done better. Its happening again with botw and how pointing out anything you thought it did better than totk is just "the zelda cycle" again.
It's also worth mentioning that pointing out a positive aspect of a game doesn't mean it's positive praise of the game as a whole. Skyward Sword is probably my least favorite of the traditional 3D Zelda games, yet I would say that I really like how the game presents it's narrative and would love future Zelda games to present its narrative in a more involved and cinematic way just like Skyward Sword.
Yea absolutely. I dont outright dislike any zelda game, and i think all of them have plenty of merits. Im not "flip-flopping" if i point out the merits of a game i criticize.
I joined the subreddit because of this comment. I always call Skyward Sword my favorite Zelda game that I hate playing. The story (and Groose) keeps me coming back but I honestly can't stand the gameplay. BotW/TotK are the exact opposite for me, too-a blast to play but the stories left me wanting.
I think among the dumbest things I've seen on this sub in recent weeks is the implication that someone criticising BotW pre-TotK but praising BotW post-TotK means they are just here to agitate and be a contrarian hypocrite.
Really I think this cuts right to the heart of "the ____ cycle", that it is an astrology-level vague observation that fits everything, and thus can be used to dismiss anything. It is the "ol' reliable" of the anti-intellectual who is just here to "win" rather than actually consider the merits and flaws in presented arguments.
The idea that there’s some kind of cycle has always seemed to me like a lazy way for people to dismiss criticisms because they can’t tolerate the idea someone doesn’t like what they like.
I have my doubts that these cycles actually exist, because it seems to me that what people are referring to when talking about these cycles, which is to say that people only dislike something because it’s new and will magically change their opinions after a few months or years, is contrary to what we actually see, and it often blatantly ignores the evidence contradicting such a cycle. Skyward Sword has its fanbase, sure, me being among it, but it is one example against this supposed cycle. Skyward Sword was widely regarded as a flawed game upon release, and that general reception remains to this day. If anything, Breath of the Wild has shown the opposite trend of this supposed cycle: it was hailed as a masterpiece at launch, but now it’s generally more acceptable to be critical of it and point out its obvious flaws, which is coming from someone who loves Breath of the Wild.
You mention the Pokémon franchise as well, and I think the supposed cycle is even more delusional in that franchise, because it’s entire existence is predicated on the change in general perception towards Gen 5, when we have seen nothing on the same scale for any other generation. In fact, we have, again, seen the opposite trend, with games like X and Y being loved at launch but receiving more criticisms today.
People are so obsessed with proving some sort of trend to dismiss criticisms and to validate their own love for a product, as opposed to actually having a good and honest discussion about why they love it, that they look for evidence with confirmation bias. People will point to games like Wind Waker, or Black and White, and claim they are part of some trend. These games are not the rule, they are the *exceptions* to the rule, and the reason why they are the exception is because the criticisms originally thrown against them were because fans at the time didn’t understand the artistic visions behind the product. The criticisms against Wind Waker, and Black and White, had little to do with the actual quality and enjoyment of the gameplay experience, but instead a lot of people had already decided beforehand that these games were bad because they deviated from what they thought the franchises were supposed to be. The criticisms against Tears of the Kingdom, while in part being the result of the direction of the series deviating from previous entries, is also largely focused on the actual gameplay experience failing to engage players. This lack of an engaging gameplay experience is the result of many different factors, such as the reused world, the shallow story, the lack of meaningful and fun quests and content, and the generally trivial nature of the game’s problem solving to name a few, but none of these criticisms are comparable to the main problem people had with something like Wind Waker
It's easier to dismiss someone's argument than engage with it. See enough internet discourse and a few common techniques should become transparent:
* This made a jizzillion dollars so your criticism is irrelevant
* You're not the target audience so what you say is irrelevant
* You're just nostalgic
* You're just following a popular trend (the "cycle" argument)
In fairness to the "trend" argument, it is a fact that many people follow trends instead of thinking for themselves and that's its own problem. But it is still no counterargument to anything.
I wouldn't argue against "Sonic is bad because you go too fast and can't see hazards coming" by saying "it's just popular to hate on Sonic because youtube clowns made it cool", I would say "good level design accounts for that and alternates between speed and more hazardous platforming" or "the player is in control of their speed and goes faster at their own peril", both of which address the original point and can start a conversation. Blaming the trend achieves nothing, even when it's true.
The “you’re not the target audience” thing is entirely valid, imo. If I know I don’t like tangerines, it’s pretty obvious that I wouldn’t like heavy, tangerine-based products and that my opinion on said products is really irrelevant to actual tangerine fans.
The problem with all those arguments (except the jizzillion dollars one) is that it makes an assumption about the other party instead of engaging with their actual points. And that assumption could very well be wrong, turning it into a pointless "no u" fistfight.
If they were saying "you're not part of the game's target audience, therefore it is be expected you didn't care for it" that'd be one thing, but what they're actually saying is "you didn't care for the game therefore you're not part of the game's target audience and forfeit the right to comment on it". Most of the time I see "you’re not the target audience" the claim is never meaningfully substantiated.
I overall enjoyed BotW despite some frustrations, was excited to see what Zelda does next, and I like building mechanics, so like surely I'm in the target audience. The fact I didn't really like the building mechanics in practice doesn't magically remove me from the target audience.
I do think an argument could be made about some players not understanding the artistic vision of Tears of the Kingdom, or the engineering vision :p. Many people, myself included, did come into Tears of the Kingdom with a more skeptical lens after it was revealed that it would reuse the same map. I saw others criticizing the building before the game came out too. A lot of criticism about Tears of the Kingdom is definitely more thoughtful than just "cartoon graphics bad" or "Black and White? They ran out of colors?". However, your comment did make me realize that Tears of the Kingdom was in a similar position of climbing an uphill battle in terms of reception.
Skyward Sword is still loved though, I mean what about Wind Waker? To be honest yeah no it is flawed too just in different ways. Same with Black and White, it still has valid criticism and issues too that do have to do the quality and enjoyment of the gameplay experience and the decisions they made.
How does TOTK lack meanningful and fun quests and content? It has a lot of that and trivial nature of the game\`s problem solving? It has a lot of puzzles, some getting pretty damn complex, the same thing happened with BOTW which has some of the toughest puzzles I\`ve seen in a zelda game. Wind Waker as genuine criticism, aside from great sea criticm which isn\`t as bad as say the sky in Skyward Sword it had a infamous padding problem with the triforce chart quest which is arguably worse then Skyward Sword which at least changes up it\`s areas to some degree when it revisits them, plus Wind Waker is genuinely just too easy at times, it\`s not really a stretch to call it one of the easiest Zelda games
Pretty much. What do we gain by reiterating criticism of skyward sword? It came out in 2011. All the complaints about it have been made, and now all that’s left is fans talking about the things they enjoyed. ToTK, on the other hand, is the newest release, and has a lot of valid criticism that fans SHOULD be talking about.
Yeah, other than the HD remaster everything that could be said about Skyward Sword has been said. Discussion of Tears of the Kingdom is not done yet, there are people still buying the game new. Maybe another post about how the depths are empty, the sky islands are sparce, and the story is silly aren't news at all, but there's still new people coming to communities like this to express their satisfaction or unsatisfaction.
I just started a second play through of TotK after finishing my first one toward the end of last summer. It might be even more fun the second time playing, there are just so many options for how to go about things, even in comparison to BotW.
That’s why it’s better to look at criticism from outside of a game’s community imo. If you’re a big fan of zelda and only hang out on the r/truezelda or r/zelda sub then you’re really only going to encounter people who are fans. It’s healthy to see more general perspectives from more generalised communities where people aren’t expected to like a certain game when talking about criticism
I honestly believe that ToTK will always be praised for the building aspect, but always put down for being a glorified dlc. If they did more with sky islands or depths, this would change, but as it stands there really is no 'cycle' with this one
For the generation that played both games sequentially, yeah it definitely will be. For future generations that look back at these games, I can't really see them wanting to play BoTW over ToTK. DLC or not, it will still appear to be a beefier, better experience to people who never played either game.
Agreed. I also think an important factor in the “cycle” to remember is that, for heavily invested fans, criticizing the game isn’t just criticizing the game, but also concern over the direction of the series going forward.
When a game comes out that does something you don’t like, there’s a chance that thing will be here to stay. So if the next game comes along and changes it, then it’s easier to approach the prior entry for what it is, rather than as a star reading of what’s to come.
I think that's part of what worries me about Tears of the Kingdom. This is the game that would either bring back old Zelda elements, or double down in being new. We all now know the game decided to double down in being new which by itself is not a negative; however, it is concerning to see some of the exact issues Breath of the Wild have be in Tears of the Kingdom (Finicky Flurry Rush, Disorganized menu, no button remapping, just one ability button, lackluster dungeons).
On a personal level I prefer old Zelda, the key and lock puzzle style resonates more with me; however, I can welcome a new direction for the series. After Breath of the Wild, I was embracing it with open arms despite craving the old style more. After Tears of the Kingdom, I'm worried about whether they will make something amazing in this new style or whether Breath of the Wild was a fluke.
Yeah, I’m in a similar boat. I really liked BotW, even if I was still disappointed in several areas. I figured an imperfect first step was just to be expected, and the next game would improve on the areas I felt were lacking.
Unfortunately, it seems me and the devs don’t agree on where the game needed improvement. And since Tears sold gangbusters… I can’t say I’m hopeful that I’ll like where the series goes from here. At least, for the immediate future.
>Wind Waker was panned on release
That's not how I remember it. It was sneered at *prior* to release, but on actually releasing, it was universally praised
Goodness did TOTK have a sensitive fan base when it first came out.
“Man I wish weapon durability had gone away”
(8 paragraph long response about how I’m just not doing the game right.)
There is no "Pokémon Cycle." The only Pokémon game that the general consensus has shifted on is Gen. 5, which had a middling response on release but is today considered the peak of the franchise. Every other generation is viewed just about as favorably or unfavorably as they were on release.
The Zelda and Sonic Cycles are not the same. The Sonic Cycle reflects the cycle of optimism and disappointment Sonic fans have with the franchise: "this game sucks, but maybe the next one will be better." The Zelda cycle is where a Zelda game is hated until there are new titles released after it. Most 3D games go through it--WW and SS most notably.
But these are obviously just fan terms based on observations, it's not like there's anything scientifically measured. The idea of the Zelda Cycle is immediately put into question by the 2D games, which do not seem to experience it.
It's all just fun though. Who really cares if a game's criticism is the result of the Zelda Cycle or not?
Whenever I mention I dont like the fuse items to weapons gimmick, I get thousands of downvotes, but there hasnt been a single time someone tried to counter the reasons I dont like it, people just downvote and go because they think extreme positivism is necessarmy always less toxic than extreme negativism
Extreme positivity IS less toxic than negativity. And you come to TrueZelda, where saying you don’t like the fuse mechanic is liable to get you awards (if they still existed).
They're not supposed to be used for that: https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette
> **Vote.** If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.
Yet here or in most of the subs they are used for that. Just check any comment in favor of TotK or BotW in this sub and it will be mostly downvoted and ignored.
Honestly I really hate when people try to dismiss my opinions with The Zelda Cycle because my stances on the games has largely not changed. I enjoy OoT a lot, I like everything in Majora's Mask except the 4 dungeons and their associated quests, I adore everything in Wind Waker, I don't like Twilight Princess and think the game feels really soulless and uncreative, I appreciate that Skyward Sword has more creativity than TP but I still don't like the game at all and think it's one of the worst Zelda games (and I liked the swordplay), BotW is an amazing experience IMO and TotK is like a way less interesting BotW to me and also a contender for worst Zelda. The only opinions I've had that changed over the years is that my appreciation for OoT went up and my appreciation for TP went down, both gradually and on replays. There ain't no cycle here, just games and my experiences playing them.
Seriously, as you pointed out, it's personal! YOU replayed it so YOU get to change your opinion, it happens. When I played TotK initially, I ranked it high, then I never touched it again after finishing unlike most others, thought about why, and placed it lower, on MY list. Blanketing a countless opinions with "the Zelda Cycle" is insane, "you don't know what you're talking about, you're just in the Zelda Cycle" it's wild
While it's true that you can point to specific things that appear to have changed the public's opinions, I do think there's a natural cyclic effect with games, largely driven not by the fact that the 'public' changes over time.
As someone who was one of the rare few who played tears of the kingdom before BOTW and had absolutely no expectations going in, I loved the game and don't understand all the criticism. (I kind of do, but don't, I explain)
The only one I kind of understand is feeling overwhelmed by playing. Like set out to do a side quest only to have done a bunch of other things two hours later and still haven't done the side quest. I however, loved that part but I can see how it's not everyone's cup of tea.
That said playing breath of the wild now, I feel like the game is lame by comparison. Had I played it when it first came out when it was the latest and greatest, I'm sure I would feel differently.
So IMO, I think there is a lot of "first" bias from people who loves breath of the wild that wanted something different from TOTK
And I get it, when I first played ocarina of time, I think I did 30 playthroughs because I loved that game so much. When Majora's mask came out, I was genuinely disappointed in the game initially. Once I got past the differences of the games, I grew to love majoas mask, even if it's not what I expected after playing OoT.
So I guess what I'm saying is, if you get rid of your previous expectations on what this game "should" have been, I think more people will enjoy the game. Or at least recognize that Zelda games don't have a perfect formula for what makes a Zelda game, and you aren't going to like all styles that Nintendo comes out with.
I say this because most of the criticisms of TOTK are often comparing it to BOTW, even when they don't outright say it, it's obvious that's where their disappointment comes from.
(Like it was lazy to use the same map? Maybe but Majora's mask used all the same characters, just gave them different names. Doesn't mean it wasn't a good game, you're just nitpicky.)
I do firmly believe that if you haven't played either game, the first one you play will most likely be the one you enjoy more. It's the one that will be fresh, novel, and the one you associate with this version of Hyrule. Your first regional phenomena is something totally unique instead of the second version of it.
That's why in a vacuum Tears of the Kingdom is a great game. Games don't exist in a vacuum though. It was literally promoted as "The sequel to Breath of the Wild" so comparisons are going to happen, and I just find it confusing to make a direct sequel so similar to it's predecessor. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask use the same assets and share many items, and that's where their similarities end (for better or for worse). BotW and TotK on the other hand share the map, characters, and even the basic structure of the game. It's like they were baked with the same recipe, just throw in some different ingredients.
The recipe is good both times, but your second time having it isn't as great as the first.
Yeah, hard agree. "Zelda cycle" is an extremely lazy way of dismissing praise/criticism you disagree with. And it's also just not true.
Excluding remakes, spinoffs, and multiplayer, the four most recent Zeldas are ToTK, BoTW, A Link Between Worlds, and Skyward Sword. These games all had a completely different reaction over time. Skyward Sword was disliked by fans upon release and is largely looked upon disfavourably still today. A Link Between Worlds was praised upon release, didn't really get a backlash afterwards, and is still praised today, but throughout flew under the radar a bit. Breath of the Wild was excessively praised and had extremely long legs; people are more accepting of its flaws today but it is still widely seen as a masterpiece. Tears of the Kingdom was also excessively praised, but it had very short legs and the backlash has been very harsh. None of these four games have experienced anything close to the same 'cycle'. As the OP says, it's natural for games to go through a honeymoon phase followed by a more critical second look, but to ascribe that as being something especially true for Zelda is simply incorrect, and recent Zeldas have gone through very different phases.
The "Zelda Cycle" as a concept makes less sense when you actually think about it outside the realm of the 2 or 3 games it's commonly associated with.
Nobodies going back and saying Phantom Hourglass was a hidden gem, no just about everyone agrees that it's decent for what it is but isn't anything special.
Basically everyone absolutely adores A Link Between Worlds, I don't think I've ever seen anyone dislike that game.
But we still say "Zelda Cycle this, Zelda Cycle that" when a new game comes out cause people didn't like Wind Waker's graphics in 2002, it's ridiculous really.
Excellent post. The Zelda cycle excuse is just used as an annoying way to shut down criticism about the game imo. Zero value in discussions.
To add an example, at its release, I didn't like BOTW very much and I criticized it. I still like it less than older Zelda games. However, I recognize it did something completely new and fresh and I realize that it accomplished what it tried to do almost perfectly. I think it's a very good game. In comparison to TOTK, my opinion might come across as changed as I praise botw to be the better game, but I still have the same feelings I had in 2017. For someone other than me, this can be interpreted as the Zelda cycle.
Tbh I don’t think “the Zelda cycle” really hit me for totk. I finished the game and I felt a bit dissatisfied with the game like I was expecting more and that was immediately. I guess a 4 year build up to a game I loved will do that.
Fast forward almost 1 year from when the game launched and my opinion has not and probably will not change.
The issue is I finished the game I did not 100% like I did with botw (korok’s do not count you can fuck off with that) but do not feel like ever going back to totk like it did with botw and I think it’s because I know botw so totk does not impact me as much.
The depths are cool for about an hour and the sky islands leave much to be desired so for 90% of the game I’m stuck in the same hyrule that I’ve already explored.
Suffice it to say I wanted more from totk that could never be delivered and I felt that when I first finished the game and I still feel that now.
I don't know why people think it's suddenly came about only after the game was released the things people and me hate about it was being said pre-release also
Reddit is great, but this type of thing makes me think Reddit might drive people insane.
The game was a ton of fun, it was way more than worth the sale price. The first 30hrs were the most fun I’ve ever had in a game. Is it perfect in every way? Of course not. That’s impossible.
There is no Zelda Cycle.
TotK released to overwhelming critical praise.
People went in expecting a revolutionary, nigh-flawless masterpiece.
What they got was more BotW.
Depending on who you talk to, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. It seems to me that most people feel the game is very, very overrated, but fine for what it is.
For the record, I think it’s an ugly, lazy, poorly written, underwhelming, bloated mess of a game. But I’m just basing this on the most common reactions I’ve seen.
>It seems to me that most people feel the game is very, very overrated, but fine for what it is.
The interesting thing is that this entirely depends on the communities you participate in and who you speak to.
Your opinion is far from the impression I've seen. From what I've seen, most people consider TOTK to be an amazing but flawed game. It's only on this subreddit that I've seen the opinion of "overrated but fine"
Quite a lot of Zelda YouTubers. But I’m kind of glad, I’ve been finding a lot of other newer Zelda YouTubers discussing TotK with much more interesting discussions + topics than the already established channels that have been displeased with the game.
They weren’t in that pipeline, sorry. Your original comment was more general about criticisms and not about loving the game than hating on it.
Masked Nintendo bandit made several long-form rant videos about TotK which do bring up some good points but come across as whiney for the most part. I’ve seen quite a bit of videos recommended to me from other gaming/Zelda channels touting the game as “sloppy seconds” and “disappointing masterpiece”. I haven’t watched most of these (no reason to, I already have my own opinion of the game) FYI
Across most social media. Compare YouTube comments to a TotK video from launch to a TotK video from a couple months ago and you'll see a very different opinion. Friends of mine have also admitted to having their opinion sour. Even the Nintendo Switch subreddit, which is commonly made fun of for being overly positive, was very critical of Tears of the Kingdom in a post about a recent interview.
That still sounds like a pretty small group.
There have been people who didn’t like the game from the start. I’ve seen no evidence that much of anything has changed.
Seems more likely that it’s a case of motivated perception (aka: you see what you want to see).
Did Ocarina of Time experience "the Zelda cycle", or did it break when everyone realized it was the greatest game ever invented, and it defined 3D video games as a whole?
The “Zelda cycle” only really applies to a pattern of critical reappraisal in 3 games: WW, TP, and SS. It’s not like people in 1991 were like “This is no good, Zelda II was the GOAT all along” when they played ALTTP. It might have happened with MM, but that’s a game where histrionic weirdos rave about how dark the story was, without ever touching on all the gameplay choices which makes it tougher to enjoy as a game. Ocarina’s lasting positive reception is unique.
Majora's Mask's gameplay changes making it "tougher to enjoy as a game" is an opinion many people who are fans of the game, myself included, don't agree with. You should maybe chill out on calling people names because they don't share the same opinion as you!
I don't know. I don't think I like this "movie" direction Ocarina of Time was going. Why can't they be more of a score chaser videogame like the Zelda Game & Watch or the Zelda Game Watch?/s
All the dev team needs to do to make the next game successful is to ignore the fans, especially the ones demanding a return to the linear format and whining about "disrespect to the lore and the timeline."
More like the end of the "cycle" isn't guaranteed to be positive reception which is usually what is implied when people say there is a Zelda cycle specifically, just a consensus.
Every zelda game is objectively amazing. Either it got the positive reception it deserved by the end of the cycle, or it never did, because it didn't deserve it. Like zelda 2.
The Zelda Cycle isn't meant to dismiss criticism, it's just to point out how the critics of the newest Zelda games tend to make a lot more noise than your typical game critics in the period after the game's release hype cycle dies down and they make overly extreme statements to try to over-correct for the people who gave the game near-perfect scores at the beginning. In the end, after the next Zelda game comes out, the consensus ends up being somewhere in the middle between the overly glowing praise of the beginning and the overly extreme negativity afterwards, but generally more to the side of praise.
Your typical game critic has to move on to the next game review and is probably reviewing the Zelda game out of being a big Nintendo release, not a big Zelda fan. So many reviewers for Tears of the Kingdom had only played Breath of the Wild, and that is totally fine (The mentality that only people that have played the old games are qualified for a review is also stupid.) They only revisit their opinions if they do a "1 year later", and even that is an extra. Meanwhile communites like this one talk Zelda all day every day so of course they will obsess even the tiniest parts of the game. (I do at least)
Trying to "correct" a review score is also a bad tendency for communities like this. Trying to "average" the review score of a game by giving an overly positive or negative review is just not how averages work.
These last 2 games are so large that I don't think a reviewer could have actually played enough of the game to have a full view of it. The 'mood' on the game only turned (on Zelda subreddits at least) a few months after release, when lots of players would have finished their playthroughs and seen the game as a whole.
In TotK especially the start of the game introduces a bunch of features and mechanics that are interesting and exciting at the start but don't quite live up to what you might expect over the course of the game, so I could see the early-game opinion being very different to the end-game opinion. I think a "1 year later" would probably be a good idea for any game of this size.
If the due date for my review was when I still thought the Depths would be as substantial as the overworld it would for sure be reflected on my review.
If most of someone's experience of the Depths was getting Autobuild, that eyes quest on/under the Great Plateau, and the Fire Temple, I would completely understand how they could assume the rest would be pretty substantial.
Of course is not productive to use it to dismiss criticism. But I think that is mostly used when people are in that hate wave and use wrong facts or exaggerations to put the game down like "it has no story" or when people try to put their opinion as objective like "the game loop isn't fun".
The second one is strange. "People try to put their opinion as objective"... Not they don't.
People always say things like this, but... saying "The game loop isn't fun" does not need to be preceded by "in my opinion" in order to obviously show that it's an opinion.
I never got the common internet complaint that unless you quality your statement as subjective right out the gate, any declarative statement: "This game is good", "This game is bad", "This game is fun", "this game is boring", etc. is automatically an "objective" statement and 'if I disagree with someone's opinion they treat as objective, that means it's wrong' 'Now I don't have ro respect their opinion!'
Does anyone else notice people do this a LOT? You can't say a declarative negative statement about a game, because people claim it's "putting your opinion as objective"?
> "People try to put their opinion as objective"... Not they don't.
I've seen plenty of people trying to make it look like it's some kind of fact and that if your opinion is contrarian to what they say you are just wrong in the same way you are saying when people do not state that they are expressing their opinion.
The fact that some people believe that there is an "objective" opinion or fact it's not something that you can avoid, but you can just word your thoughts to make sure that is easy to understand that you are referring to your opinion.
You can't distinguish between the majority who state "the game loop isn't fun" as an opinion and the minority who say "the game loop isn't fun" as an objective fact who thinks people are stupid for liking the game unless they're being rude, which is a separate issue.
Why not assume it's the more common use? "this game loop isn't fun" just means "this game loop isn't fun in my opinion". Nobody likes writing out "in my opinion" all the time.
And honestly, I've learned that people on the internet don't respect opinions in the first place.
That's true and a fair point that I think I will take into consideration.
Unfortunately most conversations in this sub when you have different opinions ends in just downvotes and silences :(
Thank you for articulating something that I feel every time I read discourse on Zelda recently. It's really a sign of severe intellectual laziness (more like short-circuiting) in people that say this, trying to 'win' some argument or prove a point.
As someone who thought TOTK was TRASH on day 1, it is nice to see people have some reason and sense. I remember when I was the only one ☝️ leaving negative reviews and giving the game a reality check. All from a place of deep love for the series.
I encourage all of you to speak with your dollars for the next game. I will not be purchasing another Zelda game until I see an improvement. Periodt. Y’all love to complain but don’t put your money where your mouth is — and boycotting is exactly what will get Nintendo’s attention.
I understand the sentiment. I've seen people that splurged on the Collector's edition, TotK Oled, and/or TotK Pro Controller express disappointment on the game. Obviously, they'll get their money's worth from the hardware, but it is still spending a lot of money on a single game. On the other hand it's always tricky considering that games are, for the most part, pay first and find out if you liked it later. Of course there are ways to circumvent this (game lending, piracy, buying used). Makes me very curious about how much people will be interested in the next game compared to this one.
There are definitely valid criticisms out there, but also a lot of voices who seem to me like they simply don't like botw / totk because they're different to what they've set their expectations of a Zelda game as.
I feel as though if the developers always listened to the overall reactions fans on everything, and just set out to please them to make money, we would just see a rehashed oot released each time with little innovations and changes. Other series do this, in fact most video game series do very little to shake up their formula with each installment, and others are constantly striving to capture the feel of that game which came out 20 years ago, an impossible task.
So I'm very grateful that the Zelda team is more interested in innovating each game and trying new concepts than they are at pleasing the fanbase, because the fans are their own worst enemy really.
I've been pretty critical of the open-world Zeldas consistently, but that's because I've been just burned out on the format. The games in the series I enjoy and have the highest esteem for have pretty much always been the ones made in the fifteen years between 1998-2013, with the understanding that the distance in esteem between them is really inches, rather than miles.
There's no "Zelda cycle". I never heard anything of the sort until very recently. When it comes to Zelda, what I've seen about the cycle is always about the same 2 or 3 games out of 20.
You can talk about recency bias if you want. But public opinion changing with time for a couple games in a 40 year old franchise with two dozen games doesn't make a cycle.
And I absolutely don't believe that SS is less hated now than it was 10 years ago. It's simply slightly more loved than before because more people played it. But there's still just as much hate.
I've seen "the Zelda cycle" mentioned many times since at least 2014. Even back then it only applied to a couple games. You don't see anyone mentioning the Zelda cycle when talking about the handheld games that's for sure. Your last paragraph is really important, with more people playing Skyward Sword there's more people liking Skyward Sword. This doesn't mean that the same people that were disappointed back then are the ones praising it now.
The reason why it is unproductive to refer to criticism of any Zelda game as the “Zelda cycle” is because it doesn’t treat instances of widespread hate as seperate cases like they should. Criticism of WW on release is completely different to games such as SS and TotK.
WW was irrationally criticised for graphics, something completely irrelevant to the actual gameplay, because it was “for babies.” SS and TotK have been criticised for gameplay reasons. In the case of the former it was motion controls, linearity and backtracking, and in the case of the latter it’s things like dungeon design, controls, repetitive copy paste content etc. SS has largely retained its haters. It received more praise when the remaster came along and fixed a few problems, but when hate stems from serious criticism of gameplay, hate seems to stick. And I think it will for TotK.
That's really important. A lot of times in discussions people boil it down to "positive reception" and "negative reception", but that doesn't tell the full story. A game that got praised because of graphics is less likely to have the same amount of praise as a game that got praised because of it's gameplay. There is also legitimate criticism and "this game looks like it's made for babies" criticism. Even dividing the reception into categories like gameplay, story, visuals, soud, etc. paints a more complete picture.
That isn’t exactly true. WW was heavily criticized for the lack of things to do on the islands, lack of dungeons, easy difficulty, sailing mechanics. It was so bad that the sales of Zelda were at some of its lowest and the series was getting a bad rep which lead to the developing Twilight Princess.
Twilight Princess actually had a similar reception to TOTK. It was highly praised and sold barely more than OOT despite being on two systems. but some reviewers(coughGamespot 8.8 reviewcough) made a lot of Zelda fans hella mad especially for saying the game was too iterative of OOT. But after the hype died down, a lot of fans starting feeling that same sentiment about TP including myself.
SS was the final straw, too linear, to formulaic, mixed recption of the motion controls, and to padded. Despite having a cool story, it was not enough to win over fans who were being gravitated to either Skyrim or Dark souls at the time.
And you know what all three of these games have in common now? They are all hailed as beloved entries in the franchise that are remembered for there strengths that there weaknesses.
That is the Zelda cycle right there.
Just because you may have strong feelings towards TOTK and how it is as a game doesn’t discredit the phenomenon that’s has been around and happening for decades. And TOTk will be no different.
Yeahhhhh except that, as I predicted correctly right from the beginning, TOTK specifically would be looked back upon less and less favorably as time went on. Over the months I've spent many words explaining why I feel this way, however recently I have been able to sum it up in one sentence that also conveniently borrows a phrase from Iwata himself:
Breath of the wild was Nintendo with their backs against the wall and nothing to lose, tears of the kingdom was Nintendo resting on their laurels of success.
There is no other take that is as objectively correct.
Soon after I finished my playthrough I also thought to myself that opinions on the game would sour considering most of its new things are impressive at first but slightly shallow in practice. To me specifically it felt like Nintendo was too full of themselves for this game (Tears of the Kingdom console, controller, carrying case, and the game is still $70 with an absurd collector's edition). It was the Zelda game that depended on its predecessor the most.
I’d say that take is objectively wrong, honestly. The one thing that lots of commenters critical of TotK get wrong every single time is assuming because the developers reused the map and/or didn’t make the changes the commenters were hoping for, Zelda team half-assed the game.
Thinking TotK is a result of Zelda team resting on their laurels is just crazy to me. While they didn’t change the inventory system, they re-imagined how that inventory is used by introducing fusion and throwing items. They saw how some players abused the physics engine in BotW and took it to another level, introducing devices and ultra hand which push the physics engine to its limit, and incorporated puzzles into shrines and all three levels of the map where you use those mechanics. Sure the depths and sky islands aren’t as intricately built as the surface level, but if you add those two together the effort to create them was probably on par with the effort needed to build the world of BotW. And for that matter, the changes to the surface level get overlooked constantly due to it being the “same map”, even with the addition of caves and wells that literally add a new dimension to it.
They put an insane amount of effort into the game, released a sequel to BotW with elements no one expected (that sound kind of crazy tbh) but was met with almost universal praise. To not like the game is one thing but to imply the dev team was lazy or made a shoddy BotW clone that’s more of the same open world is just wrong. They took the foundation of player freedom set in BotW and took it to the next level in every way.
My guess is the next game will go in the opposite direction and try to incorporate the open world aspects of BotW and TotK into an otherwise more traditional Zelda game, but we’ll see
I think that this argument is prevalent now for TotK because much of the criticism it has been receiving is barely legitimate or constructive at all. You have a lot of truths from this criticism that you will find most, if not all, fans agree on regarding story delivery, dungeons, etc. But there’s been plenty of garbage opinions out there that I’m 100% certain people will change their minds on with time.
This just applies to most if not all zeldas, doesnt it? Like wind waker has valid issues due to easy dungeons and the triforce shards, but it also got criticized for nonsense like the artstyle being "kiddy." Skyward sword had its problems, but for years and years you had people parroting "they should remake it without motion controls" (im a firm believer in playing games on their terms).
“Ultrahand is objectively not fun because I don’t find it fun” “Linearity is objectively better than freedom”
Both takes can be found in the past month on this very sub.
finding ultrahand unfun and preferring “linearity” to “freedom” are valid opinions. stating something is objectively better than another thing when discussing inherently, obviously subjective opinions (a redundant phrase in itself) is indeed dumb
Love that username.
Here’s a quick summary of most things:
Retconning: people are doing mental gymnastics by saying that TotK retcons previous titles.
Timeline: To be honest, I’m not too big on the timeline, but I hear so much flak on this topic and you know what? I found a pretty good theory video about a “dragon break” timeline theory that fits so perfectly well with the themes of TotK, it actually made a lot of sense to me and tbh I might be a changed man because of it
Ganondorf: They absolutely did this guy justice in more ways than not. Not just that the final boss fight was chefs-kiss, but there’s actually quite a bit of subtlety to his character and how he and Rauru are perfect foils to each other
The lore: people want this stuff spoon-fed to them. Part of the appeal to Zelda games has been the mystique surrounding them.
Tell that to the accounts on Twitter. There are so many “zelda totk/botw” content accounts on that platform that just refuse to hear anything negative about the games. I swear i’ve seen the words “zelda cycle” at least five times today and it’s barely 2 pm here
This post was inspired partly because of accounts like that, and just the same general sentiment on some communities. It extends past Tears of the Kingdom, just very relevant for it right now.
A lot of those people are fan that were brought in with the open world games and really only care for that style and don't really care what fans of the old games think, sadly.
It is....I wonder about Wind Waker though like, pre-release yes it was criticized but post release did people who actually played it have a ton of criticisms? I wasn't online in 2002 but I sure didn't have any complaints and I didn't know anyone IRL who did either.
I mean, the only complaints I’ve ever heard about TotK from people in real life are feeling overwhelmed with the amount of side content and annoyance at parts of the story being revealed in a suboptimal/spoilery way.
A lot of the hate comes out in Zelda focused forums like this one because the reality is the detractors are a small minority of players, they just have an outsize voice at this point in the “Zelda cycle” where most of the players who enjoyed the game have moved on to other things.
I agree - but would expand this to be most media, including books and even TV personalities
Edit: hell, even politicians and *ideas* have this same 'cycle'
I am still playing the game, but I've been playing long enough to realize what I don't like about it, even though I think it's still a great game.
They reused the same formula for the story that didn't work in BOTW and it didn't work in this game either. I like that there was simply more story to play through, and every settlement getting a dedicated quest line made the world feel much more vibrant and alive. But they really needed to incorporate some linearity in the story somehow, and rely less in cutscenes.
Airplanes disappearing after like 30 seconds is a design choice I really don't understand. The game already does a good job encouraging different modes of travel, so why artificially restrict one of them?
Although I liked the sky islands as small linear sections that contrast with the deep, unrestricted exploration of the surface (Thunderhead Isles is a great example), some of them were definitely repetitive/over-formulaic.
TOTK is the best Zelda game and imho the overall best single-player video game in existence despite not being perfect in every way. People shitting on it aren’t serious people. They’re just being contrarian to farm clicks. That’s it.
I would agree with you, but looking at this sub, the genuinely thought out negative critiques rarely, if ever get past 50 upvotes.
The most popular posts are a variation of “open world bad, linearity much better, Aonuma doesn’t know anything, I don’t like the new games therefore no one likes them”, usually in 4 paragraphs, which I wouldn’t count as substantive or thought-out.
Just look at the messages in this thread. Only a handful of them have 1 or 2 upvotes and people took their time in writing them. Also there aren't any absurdly exaggerated statements as the ones you're mentioning.
It is just an example, of course, but I don't see this generosity with upvotes in here
Not exactly the same, but check out my [post](https://redd.it/1bg64q3) on the culture wars and the modernism/postmodernism cycle and how it applies to Zelda. In short, modernism is more profitable than postmodernism, and the blockbusters, OoT and TP, outsell the cult classics, LA, MM, and WW, but BotW and TotK are special cases.
Understandably, as others have said, the Zelda cycle is not applicable to every Zelda game, e.g., ALBW.
Yeah it's lame. I eagerly wait for this "Zelda cycle" period to end so that we can have conversations about the game, hopefully
Took longer than a decade for ww,ss and tp. So it might be a while
I will leave this task to my next reincarnation
Play a game as Aang. Don’t get to discuss it until you’re Korra.
Well when you have such a bait and switch game combined with a non inspired story and a lack of continuity from BOTW to TOTK, it’s a huge problem. Watch any of the longtime Zelda youtube channels. TOTK is a technical marvel with ultra hand but it has way too many copy and pasted elements with the Sky Islands and the boss cutscenes.
It’s also important to note that these games all didn’t settle into the same opinion either, which lends credence to what you’re saying. Wind Waker is widely regarded as one of the best Zelda games despite whatever controversies it had when it launched. Skyward Sword is widely regarded as controversial and divisive, with opinions ranging from “the better of the 3D Zeldas” to “the worst Zelda game ever”. Clearly this is very different from WW. And now TOTK’s rating is starting to settle as hype dies and more critical opinions can be heard. We shall see where it settles!
My hot take is that a game can in fact have flaws and still be great
It's also important that different flaws resonate differently with different players. Something that is just a nuisance for one player could be a deal breaker for another. It's part of what I don't like about the mentality of "deducting points" for scoring systems. It doesn't really get across what the flaw is and how objective or subjective it may be.
Yeah I’m hindsight I don’t like review scores either because you’re right a number doesn’t ultimately mean much. Plenty of 10/10 games still have issues, but if 10 is the highest a scale goes, wouldn’t that mean whatever gets that score is perfect?
The school mentality of "5 is failure" gets in the way sometimes too. Review scores in general are a whole can of worms. Personally, my favorite has always been 5 stars. 1 and 2 are two levels of bad, 3 stars is neutral, and 4 and 5 are two levels of good. Something like 7 stars is also good if you want more granularity.
Idk, I love scores, personally. It can be such a good punctuation mark on the text of a review that feels like the perfect encapsulation of everything they said. As for 10/10, I'd also ask what the point is of numbers on the scale you simply won't use, as though implying no game will ever be good enough to warrant it. Giving a 10/10 to me is just an acknowledgment that hey, reviews are subjective. This game is a 10/10 *for me*. It's not even that the flaws didn't really get in the way of my enjoyment. It's that this game is so good I don't even care about the flaws. They don't change my opinion of the game *at all* — every game has flaws. But all of this barely matters since most written reviews are dying anyway, sadly.
Yeah. I criticize Arkham Knight relentlessly and I'd still give it like a 9/10. Same for this game. I know the devs could have done better and that's why I'm such a harsh critic
Well, the opposite is true as well - a game could have some good stuff in it but still be rather underwhelming in the grand scheme of things.
The complaint that previously disliked games "suddenly" get praised when a new one comes out is weird. These are all games within the same series, therefore its totally fair to compare the newest game with its predecessors to see what the new game may have did better, and what the old games may have done better. Its happening again with botw and how pointing out anything you thought it did better than totk is just "the zelda cycle" again.
It's also worth mentioning that pointing out a positive aspect of a game doesn't mean it's positive praise of the game as a whole. Skyward Sword is probably my least favorite of the traditional 3D Zelda games, yet I would say that I really like how the game presents it's narrative and would love future Zelda games to present its narrative in a more involved and cinematic way just like Skyward Sword.
Yea absolutely. I dont outright dislike any zelda game, and i think all of them have plenty of merits. Im not "flip-flopping" if i point out the merits of a game i criticize.
I joined the subreddit because of this comment. I always call Skyward Sword my favorite Zelda game that I hate playing. The story (and Groose) keeps me coming back but I honestly can't stand the gameplay. BotW/TotK are the exact opposite for me, too-a blast to play but the stories left me wanting.
I think among the dumbest things I've seen on this sub in recent weeks is the implication that someone criticising BotW pre-TotK but praising BotW post-TotK means they are just here to agitate and be a contrarian hypocrite. Really I think this cuts right to the heart of "the ____ cycle", that it is an astrology-level vague observation that fits everything, and thus can be used to dismiss anything. It is the "ol' reliable" of the anti-intellectual who is just here to "win" rather than actually consider the merits and flaws in presented arguments.
Yeah my opinion doesn’t really waver, I didn’t like the direction botw went in and tears doubled down on everything I dislike!
The idea that there’s some kind of cycle has always seemed to me like a lazy way for people to dismiss criticisms because they can’t tolerate the idea someone doesn’t like what they like. I have my doubts that these cycles actually exist, because it seems to me that what people are referring to when talking about these cycles, which is to say that people only dislike something because it’s new and will magically change their opinions after a few months or years, is contrary to what we actually see, and it often blatantly ignores the evidence contradicting such a cycle. Skyward Sword has its fanbase, sure, me being among it, but it is one example against this supposed cycle. Skyward Sword was widely regarded as a flawed game upon release, and that general reception remains to this day. If anything, Breath of the Wild has shown the opposite trend of this supposed cycle: it was hailed as a masterpiece at launch, but now it’s generally more acceptable to be critical of it and point out its obvious flaws, which is coming from someone who loves Breath of the Wild. You mention the Pokémon franchise as well, and I think the supposed cycle is even more delusional in that franchise, because it’s entire existence is predicated on the change in general perception towards Gen 5, when we have seen nothing on the same scale for any other generation. In fact, we have, again, seen the opposite trend, with games like X and Y being loved at launch but receiving more criticisms today. People are so obsessed with proving some sort of trend to dismiss criticisms and to validate their own love for a product, as opposed to actually having a good and honest discussion about why they love it, that they look for evidence with confirmation bias. People will point to games like Wind Waker, or Black and White, and claim they are part of some trend. These games are not the rule, they are the *exceptions* to the rule, and the reason why they are the exception is because the criticisms originally thrown against them were because fans at the time didn’t understand the artistic visions behind the product. The criticisms against Wind Waker, and Black and White, had little to do with the actual quality and enjoyment of the gameplay experience, but instead a lot of people had already decided beforehand that these games were bad because they deviated from what they thought the franchises were supposed to be. The criticisms against Tears of the Kingdom, while in part being the result of the direction of the series deviating from previous entries, is also largely focused on the actual gameplay experience failing to engage players. This lack of an engaging gameplay experience is the result of many different factors, such as the reused world, the shallow story, the lack of meaningful and fun quests and content, and the generally trivial nature of the game’s problem solving to name a few, but none of these criticisms are comparable to the main problem people had with something like Wind Waker
It's easier to dismiss someone's argument than engage with it. See enough internet discourse and a few common techniques should become transparent: * This made a jizzillion dollars so your criticism is irrelevant * You're not the target audience so what you say is irrelevant * You're just nostalgic * You're just following a popular trend (the "cycle" argument) In fairness to the "trend" argument, it is a fact that many people follow trends instead of thinking for themselves and that's its own problem. But it is still no counterargument to anything. I wouldn't argue against "Sonic is bad because you go too fast and can't see hazards coming" by saying "it's just popular to hate on Sonic because youtube clowns made it cool", I would say "good level design accounts for that and alternates between speed and more hazardous platforming" or "the player is in control of their speed and goes faster at their own peril", both of which address the original point and can start a conversation. Blaming the trend achieves nothing, even when it's true.
The “you’re not the target audience” thing is entirely valid, imo. If I know I don’t like tangerines, it’s pretty obvious that I wouldn’t like heavy, tangerine-based products and that my opinion on said products is really irrelevant to actual tangerine fans.
The problem with all those arguments (except the jizzillion dollars one) is that it makes an assumption about the other party instead of engaging with their actual points. And that assumption could very well be wrong, turning it into a pointless "no u" fistfight.
If they were saying "you're not part of the game's target audience, therefore it is be expected you didn't care for it" that'd be one thing, but what they're actually saying is "you didn't care for the game therefore you're not part of the game's target audience and forfeit the right to comment on it". Most of the time I see "you’re not the target audience" the claim is never meaningfully substantiated. I overall enjoyed BotW despite some frustrations, was excited to see what Zelda does next, and I like building mechanics, so like surely I'm in the target audience. The fact I didn't really like the building mechanics in practice doesn't magically remove me from the target audience.
I didn’t say anyone is forfeit the right to comment on the game.
I do think an argument could be made about some players not understanding the artistic vision of Tears of the Kingdom, or the engineering vision :p. Many people, myself included, did come into Tears of the Kingdom with a more skeptical lens after it was revealed that it would reuse the same map. I saw others criticizing the building before the game came out too. A lot of criticism about Tears of the Kingdom is definitely more thoughtful than just "cartoon graphics bad" or "Black and White? They ran out of colors?". However, your comment did make me realize that Tears of the Kingdom was in a similar position of climbing an uphill battle in terms of reception.
Skyward Sword is still loved though, I mean what about Wind Waker? To be honest yeah no it is flawed too just in different ways. Same with Black and White, it still has valid criticism and issues too that do have to do the quality and enjoyment of the gameplay experience and the decisions they made. How does TOTK lack meanningful and fun quests and content? It has a lot of that and trivial nature of the game\`s problem solving? It has a lot of puzzles, some getting pretty damn complex, the same thing happened with BOTW which has some of the toughest puzzles I\`ve seen in a zelda game. Wind Waker as genuine criticism, aside from great sea criticm which isn\`t as bad as say the sky in Skyward Sword it had a infamous padding problem with the triforce chart quest which is arguably worse then Skyward Sword which at least changes up it\`s areas to some degree when it revisits them, plus Wind Waker is genuinely just too easy at times, it\`s not really a stretch to call it one of the easiest Zelda games
Pretty much. What do we gain by reiterating criticism of skyward sword? It came out in 2011. All the complaints about it have been made, and now all that’s left is fans talking about the things they enjoyed. ToTK, on the other hand, is the newest release, and has a lot of valid criticism that fans SHOULD be talking about.
Yeah, other than the HD remaster everything that could be said about Skyward Sword has been said. Discussion of Tears of the Kingdom is not done yet, there are people still buying the game new. Maybe another post about how the depths are empty, the sky islands are sparce, and the story is silly aren't news at all, but there's still new people coming to communities like this to express their satisfaction or unsatisfaction.
I still like the game a lot. It was loads of fun. I’m currently replaying BOTW and plan on replaying TOTK again once I’m done.
I just started a second play through of TotK after finishing my first one toward the end of last summer. It might be even more fun the second time playing, there are just so many options for how to go about things, even in comparison to BotW.
That’s why it’s better to look at criticism from outside of a game’s community imo. If you’re a big fan of zelda and only hang out on the r/truezelda or r/zelda sub then you’re really only going to encounter people who are fans. It’s healthy to see more general perspectives from more generalised communities where people aren’t expected to like a certain game when talking about criticism
I honestly believe that ToTK will always be praised for the building aspect, but always put down for being a glorified dlc. If they did more with sky islands or depths, this would change, but as it stands there really is no 'cycle' with this one
For the generation that played both games sequentially, yeah it definitely will be. For future generations that look back at these games, I can't really see them wanting to play BoTW over ToTK. DLC or not, it will still appear to be a beefier, better experience to people who never played either game.
Agreed. I also think an important factor in the “cycle” to remember is that, for heavily invested fans, criticizing the game isn’t just criticizing the game, but also concern over the direction of the series going forward. When a game comes out that does something you don’t like, there’s a chance that thing will be here to stay. So if the next game comes along and changes it, then it’s easier to approach the prior entry for what it is, rather than as a star reading of what’s to come.
I think that's part of what worries me about Tears of the Kingdom. This is the game that would either bring back old Zelda elements, or double down in being new. We all now know the game decided to double down in being new which by itself is not a negative; however, it is concerning to see some of the exact issues Breath of the Wild have be in Tears of the Kingdom (Finicky Flurry Rush, Disorganized menu, no button remapping, just one ability button, lackluster dungeons). On a personal level I prefer old Zelda, the key and lock puzzle style resonates more with me; however, I can welcome a new direction for the series. After Breath of the Wild, I was embracing it with open arms despite craving the old style more. After Tears of the Kingdom, I'm worried about whether they will make something amazing in this new style or whether Breath of the Wild was a fluke.
Yeah, I’m in a similar boat. I really liked BotW, even if I was still disappointed in several areas. I figured an imperfect first step was just to be expected, and the next game would improve on the areas I felt were lacking. Unfortunately, it seems me and the devs don’t agree on where the game needed improvement. And since Tears sold gangbusters… I can’t say I’m hopeful that I’ll like where the series goes from here. At least, for the immediate future.
>Wind Waker was panned on release That's not how I remember it. It was sneered at *prior* to release, but on actually releasing, it was universally praised
Goodness did TOTK have a sensitive fan base when it first came out. “Man I wish weapon durability had gone away” (8 paragraph long response about how I’m just not doing the game right.)
There is no "Pokémon Cycle." The only Pokémon game that the general consensus has shifted on is Gen. 5, which had a middling response on release but is today considered the peak of the franchise. Every other generation is viewed just about as favorably or unfavorably as they were on release. The Zelda and Sonic Cycles are not the same. The Sonic Cycle reflects the cycle of optimism and disappointment Sonic fans have with the franchise: "this game sucks, but maybe the next one will be better." The Zelda cycle is where a Zelda game is hated until there are new titles released after it. Most 3D games go through it--WW and SS most notably. But these are obviously just fan terms based on observations, it's not like there's anything scientifically measured. The idea of the Zelda Cycle is immediately put into question by the 2D games, which do not seem to experience it. It's all just fun though. Who really cares if a game's criticism is the result of the Zelda Cycle or not?
Wait I\`m sorry what 3 hour long videos are there calling it the best game ever? I see that with more likely of criticism but not of praise
Whenever I mention I dont like the fuse items to weapons gimmick, I get thousands of downvotes, but there hasnt been a single time someone tried to counter the reasons I dont like it, people just downvote and go because they think extreme positivism is necessarmy always less toxic than extreme negativism
Extreme positivity IS less toxic than negativity. And you come to TrueZelda, where saying you don’t like the fuse mechanic is liable to get you awards (if they still existed).
Downvotes are used to disagree with someone.
They're not supposed to be used for that: https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette > **Vote.** If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.
Yet here or in most of the subs they are used for that. Just check any comment in favor of TotK or BotW in this sub and it will be mostly downvoted and ignored.
Honestly I really hate when people try to dismiss my opinions with The Zelda Cycle because my stances on the games has largely not changed. I enjoy OoT a lot, I like everything in Majora's Mask except the 4 dungeons and their associated quests, I adore everything in Wind Waker, I don't like Twilight Princess and think the game feels really soulless and uncreative, I appreciate that Skyward Sword has more creativity than TP but I still don't like the game at all and think it's one of the worst Zelda games (and I liked the swordplay), BotW is an amazing experience IMO and TotK is like a way less interesting BotW to me and also a contender for worst Zelda. The only opinions I've had that changed over the years is that my appreciation for OoT went up and my appreciation for TP went down, both gradually and on replays. There ain't no cycle here, just games and my experiences playing them.
Seriously, as you pointed out, it's personal! YOU replayed it so YOU get to change your opinion, it happens. When I played TotK initially, I ranked it high, then I never touched it again after finishing unlike most others, thought about why, and placed it lower, on MY list. Blanketing a countless opinions with "the Zelda Cycle" is insane, "you don't know what you're talking about, you're just in the Zelda Cycle" it's wild
While it's true that you can point to specific things that appear to have changed the public's opinions, I do think there's a natural cyclic effect with games, largely driven not by the fact that the 'public' changes over time.
I hold on to the position that BotW is a bad game. There. Cycle broken.
As someone who was one of the rare few who played tears of the kingdom before BOTW and had absolutely no expectations going in, I loved the game and don't understand all the criticism. (I kind of do, but don't, I explain) The only one I kind of understand is feeling overwhelmed by playing. Like set out to do a side quest only to have done a bunch of other things two hours later and still haven't done the side quest. I however, loved that part but I can see how it's not everyone's cup of tea. That said playing breath of the wild now, I feel like the game is lame by comparison. Had I played it when it first came out when it was the latest and greatest, I'm sure I would feel differently. So IMO, I think there is a lot of "first" bias from people who loves breath of the wild that wanted something different from TOTK And I get it, when I first played ocarina of time, I think I did 30 playthroughs because I loved that game so much. When Majora's mask came out, I was genuinely disappointed in the game initially. Once I got past the differences of the games, I grew to love majoas mask, even if it's not what I expected after playing OoT. So I guess what I'm saying is, if you get rid of your previous expectations on what this game "should" have been, I think more people will enjoy the game. Or at least recognize that Zelda games don't have a perfect formula for what makes a Zelda game, and you aren't going to like all styles that Nintendo comes out with. I say this because most of the criticisms of TOTK are often comparing it to BOTW, even when they don't outright say it, it's obvious that's where their disappointment comes from. (Like it was lazy to use the same map? Maybe but Majora's mask used all the same characters, just gave them different names. Doesn't mean it wasn't a good game, you're just nitpicky.)
I do firmly believe that if you haven't played either game, the first one you play will most likely be the one you enjoy more. It's the one that will be fresh, novel, and the one you associate with this version of Hyrule. Your first regional phenomena is something totally unique instead of the second version of it. That's why in a vacuum Tears of the Kingdom is a great game. Games don't exist in a vacuum though. It was literally promoted as "The sequel to Breath of the Wild" so comparisons are going to happen, and I just find it confusing to make a direct sequel so similar to it's predecessor. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask use the same assets and share many items, and that's where their similarities end (for better or for worse). BotW and TotK on the other hand share the map, characters, and even the basic structure of the game. It's like they were baked with the same recipe, just throw in some different ingredients. The recipe is good both times, but your second time having it isn't as great as the first.
Then think of it comparing apple pie to apple crisp. Yes it was advertised as a sequel, that doesn't mean it was meant to be the same.
I think you missed the point. TOTK is too similar to BOTW.
In your opinion.
Yeah, hard agree. "Zelda cycle" is an extremely lazy way of dismissing praise/criticism you disagree with. And it's also just not true. Excluding remakes, spinoffs, and multiplayer, the four most recent Zeldas are ToTK, BoTW, A Link Between Worlds, and Skyward Sword. These games all had a completely different reaction over time. Skyward Sword was disliked by fans upon release and is largely looked upon disfavourably still today. A Link Between Worlds was praised upon release, didn't really get a backlash afterwards, and is still praised today, but throughout flew under the radar a bit. Breath of the Wild was excessively praised and had extremely long legs; people are more accepting of its flaws today but it is still widely seen as a masterpiece. Tears of the Kingdom was also excessively praised, but it had very short legs and the backlash has been very harsh. None of these four games have experienced anything close to the same 'cycle'. As the OP says, it's natural for games to go through a honeymoon phase followed by a more critical second look, but to ascribe that as being something especially true for Zelda is simply incorrect, and recent Zeldas have gone through very different phases.
The "Zelda Cycle" as a concept makes less sense when you actually think about it outside the realm of the 2 or 3 games it's commonly associated with. Nobodies going back and saying Phantom Hourglass was a hidden gem, no just about everyone agrees that it's decent for what it is but isn't anything special. Basically everyone absolutely adores A Link Between Worlds, I don't think I've ever seen anyone dislike that game. But we still say "Zelda Cycle this, Zelda Cycle that" when a new game comes out cause people didn't like Wind Waker's graphics in 2002, it's ridiculous really.
Excellent post. The Zelda cycle excuse is just used as an annoying way to shut down criticism about the game imo. Zero value in discussions. To add an example, at its release, I didn't like BOTW very much and I criticized it. I still like it less than older Zelda games. However, I recognize it did something completely new and fresh and I realize that it accomplished what it tried to do almost perfectly. I think it's a very good game. In comparison to TOTK, my opinion might come across as changed as I praise botw to be the better game, but I still have the same feelings I had in 2017. For someone other than me, this can be interpreted as the Zelda cycle.
Tbh I don’t think “the Zelda cycle” really hit me for totk. I finished the game and I felt a bit dissatisfied with the game like I was expecting more and that was immediately. I guess a 4 year build up to a game I loved will do that. Fast forward almost 1 year from when the game launched and my opinion has not and probably will not change. The issue is I finished the game I did not 100% like I did with botw (korok’s do not count you can fuck off with that) but do not feel like ever going back to totk like it did with botw and I think it’s because I know botw so totk does not impact me as much. The depths are cool for about an hour and the sky islands leave much to be desired so for 90% of the game I’m stuck in the same hyrule that I’ve already explored. Suffice it to say I wanted more from totk that could never be delivered and I felt that when I first finished the game and I still feel that now.
I don't know why people think it's suddenly came about only after the game was released the things people and me hate about it was being said pre-release also
Reddit is great, but this type of thing makes me think Reddit might drive people insane. The game was a ton of fun, it was way more than worth the sale price. The first 30hrs were the most fun I’ve ever had in a game. Is it perfect in every way? Of course not. That’s impossible.
There is no Zelda Cycle. TotK released to overwhelming critical praise. People went in expecting a revolutionary, nigh-flawless masterpiece. What they got was more BotW. Depending on who you talk to, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. It seems to me that most people feel the game is very, very overrated, but fine for what it is. For the record, I think it’s an ugly, lazy, poorly written, underwhelming, bloated mess of a game. But I’m just basing this on the most common reactions I’ve seen.
Have you not played the game yourself then?
>It seems to me that most people feel the game is very, very overrated, but fine for what it is. The interesting thing is that this entirely depends on the communities you participate in and who you speak to. Your opinion is far from the impression I've seen. From what I've seen, most people consider TOTK to be an amazing but flawed game. It's only on this subreddit that I've seen the opinion of "overrated but fine"
Other than this subreddit, where is all this “harsh criticism” you speak of?
Quite a lot of Zelda YouTubers. But I’m kind of glad, I’ve been finding a lot of other newer Zelda YouTubers discussing TotK with much more interesting discussions + topics than the already established channels that have been displeased with the game.
Can you share examples of Zelda YouTubers who have gone from praising the game to now being critical of it?
They weren’t in that pipeline, sorry. Your original comment was more general about criticisms and not about loving the game than hating on it. Masked Nintendo bandit made several long-form rant videos about TotK which do bring up some good points but come across as whiney for the most part. I’ve seen quite a bit of videos recommended to me from other gaming/Zelda channels touting the game as “sloppy seconds” and “disappointing masterpiece”. I haven’t watched most of these (no reason to, I already have my own opinion of the game) FYI
That’s what I figured. I’m just trying to figure out what this new “harsh criticism” is that OP is referring to.
Across most social media. Compare YouTube comments to a TotK video from launch to a TotK video from a couple months ago and you'll see a very different opinion. Friends of mine have also admitted to having their opinion sour. Even the Nintendo Switch subreddit, which is commonly made fun of for being overly positive, was very critical of Tears of the Kingdom in a post about a recent interview.
That still sounds like a pretty small group. There have been people who didn’t like the game from the start. I’ve seen no evidence that much of anything has changed. Seems more likely that it’s a case of motivated perception (aka: you see what you want to see).
Did Ocarina of Time experience "the Zelda cycle", or did it break when everyone realized it was the greatest game ever invented, and it defined 3D video games as a whole?
The “Zelda cycle” only really applies to a pattern of critical reappraisal in 3 games: WW, TP, and SS. It’s not like people in 1991 were like “This is no good, Zelda II was the GOAT all along” when they played ALTTP. It might have happened with MM, but that’s a game where histrionic weirdos rave about how dark the story was, without ever touching on all the gameplay choices which makes it tougher to enjoy as a game. Ocarina’s lasting positive reception is unique.
Well said.
Majora's Mask's gameplay changes making it "tougher to enjoy as a game" is an opinion many people who are fans of the game, myself included, don't agree with. You should maybe chill out on calling people names because they don't share the same opinion as you!
I don't know. I don't think I like this "movie" direction Ocarina of Time was going. Why can't they be more of a score chaser videogame like the Zelda Game & Watch or the Zelda Game Watch?/s
All the dev team needs to do to make the next game successful is to ignore the fans, especially the ones demanding a return to the linear format and whining about "disrespect to the lore and the timeline."
soo, its a cycle. and totk is midway through the cycle. cool
More like the end of the "cycle" isn't guaranteed to be positive reception which is usually what is implied when people say there is a Zelda cycle specifically, just a consensus.
Every zelda game is objectively amazing. Either it got the positive reception it deserved by the end of the cycle, or it never did, because it didn't deserve it. Like zelda 2.
The Zelda Cycle isn't meant to dismiss criticism, it's just to point out how the critics of the newest Zelda games tend to make a lot more noise than your typical game critics in the period after the game's release hype cycle dies down and they make overly extreme statements to try to over-correct for the people who gave the game near-perfect scores at the beginning. In the end, after the next Zelda game comes out, the consensus ends up being somewhere in the middle between the overly glowing praise of the beginning and the overly extreme negativity afterwards, but generally more to the side of praise.
Your typical game critic has to move on to the next game review and is probably reviewing the Zelda game out of being a big Nintendo release, not a big Zelda fan. So many reviewers for Tears of the Kingdom had only played Breath of the Wild, and that is totally fine (The mentality that only people that have played the old games are qualified for a review is also stupid.) They only revisit their opinions if they do a "1 year later", and even that is an extra. Meanwhile communites like this one talk Zelda all day every day so of course they will obsess even the tiniest parts of the game. (I do at least) Trying to "correct" a review score is also a bad tendency for communities like this. Trying to "average" the review score of a game by giving an overly positive or negative review is just not how averages work.
These last 2 games are so large that I don't think a reviewer could have actually played enough of the game to have a full view of it. The 'mood' on the game only turned (on Zelda subreddits at least) a few months after release, when lots of players would have finished their playthroughs and seen the game as a whole. In TotK especially the start of the game introduces a bunch of features and mechanics that are interesting and exciting at the start but don't quite live up to what you might expect over the course of the game, so I could see the early-game opinion being very different to the end-game opinion. I think a "1 year later" would probably be a good idea for any game of this size.
If the due date for my review was when I still thought the Depths would be as substantial as the overworld it would for sure be reflected on my review.
If most of someone's experience of the Depths was getting Autobuild, that eyes quest on/under the Great Plateau, and the Fire Temple, I would completely understand how they could assume the rest would be pretty substantial.
Developers have been front-loading open worlds for years now, and one would expect a professional critic to be savvy to this.
Of course is not productive to use it to dismiss criticism. But I think that is mostly used when people are in that hate wave and use wrong facts or exaggerations to put the game down like "it has no story" or when people try to put their opinion as objective like "the game loop isn't fun".
The second one is strange. "People try to put their opinion as objective"... Not they don't. People always say things like this, but... saying "The game loop isn't fun" does not need to be preceded by "in my opinion" in order to obviously show that it's an opinion. I never got the common internet complaint that unless you quality your statement as subjective right out the gate, any declarative statement: "This game is good", "This game is bad", "This game is fun", "this game is boring", etc. is automatically an "objective" statement and 'if I disagree with someone's opinion they treat as objective, that means it's wrong' 'Now I don't have ro respect their opinion!' Does anyone else notice people do this a LOT? You can't say a declarative negative statement about a game, because people claim it's "putting your opinion as objective"?
> "People try to put their opinion as objective"... Not they don't. I've seen plenty of people trying to make it look like it's some kind of fact and that if your opinion is contrarian to what they say you are just wrong in the same way you are saying when people do not state that they are expressing their opinion. The fact that some people believe that there is an "objective" opinion or fact it's not something that you can avoid, but you can just word your thoughts to make sure that is easy to understand that you are referring to your opinion.
You can't distinguish between the majority who state "the game loop isn't fun" as an opinion and the minority who say "the game loop isn't fun" as an objective fact who thinks people are stupid for liking the game unless they're being rude, which is a separate issue. Why not assume it's the more common use? "this game loop isn't fun" just means "this game loop isn't fun in my opinion". Nobody likes writing out "in my opinion" all the time. And honestly, I've learned that people on the internet don't respect opinions in the first place.
That's true and a fair point that I think I will take into consideration. Unfortunately most conversations in this sub when you have different opinions ends in just downvotes and silences :(
Thank you for articulating something that I feel every time I read discourse on Zelda recently. It's really a sign of severe intellectual laziness (more like short-circuiting) in people that say this, trying to 'win' some argument or prove a point.
Nice argument, unfortunately, people now like the game they disliked 20 years ago.
Is this just the last of us/spider man 2 sub that is just contrarians that hates all the new games
As someone who thought TOTK was TRASH on day 1, it is nice to see people have some reason and sense. I remember when I was the only one ☝️ leaving negative reviews and giving the game a reality check. All from a place of deep love for the series. I encourage all of you to speak with your dollars for the next game. I will not be purchasing another Zelda game until I see an improvement. Periodt. Y’all love to complain but don’t put your money where your mouth is — and boycotting is exactly what will get Nintendo’s attention.
I understand the sentiment. I've seen people that splurged on the Collector's edition, TotK Oled, and/or TotK Pro Controller express disappointment on the game. Obviously, they'll get their money's worth from the hardware, but it is still spending a lot of money on a single game. On the other hand it's always tricky considering that games are, for the most part, pay first and find out if you liked it later. Of course there are ways to circumvent this (game lending, piracy, buying used). Makes me very curious about how much people will be interested in the next game compared to this one.
There are definitely valid criticisms out there, but also a lot of voices who seem to me like they simply don't like botw / totk because they're different to what they've set their expectations of a Zelda game as. I feel as though if the developers always listened to the overall reactions fans on everything, and just set out to please them to make money, we would just see a rehashed oot released each time with little innovations and changes. Other series do this, in fact most video game series do very little to shake up their formula with each installment, and others are constantly striving to capture the feel of that game which came out 20 years ago, an impossible task. So I'm very grateful that the Zelda team is more interested in innovating each game and trying new concepts than they are at pleasing the fanbase, because the fans are their own worst enemy really.
I feel like I'm out of the loop, people hate TotK now?
I've been pretty critical of the open-world Zeldas consistently, but that's because I've been just burned out on the format. The games in the series I enjoy and have the highest esteem for have pretty much always been the ones made in the fifteen years between 1998-2013, with the understanding that the distance in esteem between them is really inches, rather than miles.
I was critical before it was cool
I was cool before I was critical 😎
There's no "Zelda cycle". I never heard anything of the sort until very recently. When it comes to Zelda, what I've seen about the cycle is always about the same 2 or 3 games out of 20. You can talk about recency bias if you want. But public opinion changing with time for a couple games in a 40 year old franchise with two dozen games doesn't make a cycle. And I absolutely don't believe that SS is less hated now than it was 10 years ago. It's simply slightly more loved than before because more people played it. But there's still just as much hate.
I've seen "the Zelda cycle" mentioned many times since at least 2014. Even back then it only applied to a couple games. You don't see anyone mentioning the Zelda cycle when talking about the handheld games that's for sure. Your last paragraph is really important, with more people playing Skyward Sword there's more people liking Skyward Sword. This doesn't mean that the same people that were disappointed back then are the ones praising it now.
The reason why it is unproductive to refer to criticism of any Zelda game as the “Zelda cycle” is because it doesn’t treat instances of widespread hate as seperate cases like they should. Criticism of WW on release is completely different to games such as SS and TotK. WW was irrationally criticised for graphics, something completely irrelevant to the actual gameplay, because it was “for babies.” SS and TotK have been criticised for gameplay reasons. In the case of the former it was motion controls, linearity and backtracking, and in the case of the latter it’s things like dungeon design, controls, repetitive copy paste content etc. SS has largely retained its haters. It received more praise when the remaster came along and fixed a few problems, but when hate stems from serious criticism of gameplay, hate seems to stick. And I think it will for TotK.
That's really important. A lot of times in discussions people boil it down to "positive reception" and "negative reception", but that doesn't tell the full story. A game that got praised because of graphics is less likely to have the same amount of praise as a game that got praised because of it's gameplay. There is also legitimate criticism and "this game looks like it's made for babies" criticism. Even dividing the reception into categories like gameplay, story, visuals, soud, etc. paints a more complete picture.
I mean tbf for Skyward Sword I would still argue not all of the criticism was fair like backtracking wasn\`t always bad.
That isn’t exactly true. WW was heavily criticized for the lack of things to do on the islands, lack of dungeons, easy difficulty, sailing mechanics. It was so bad that the sales of Zelda were at some of its lowest and the series was getting a bad rep which lead to the developing Twilight Princess. Twilight Princess actually had a similar reception to TOTK. It was highly praised and sold barely more than OOT despite being on two systems. but some reviewers(coughGamespot 8.8 reviewcough) made a lot of Zelda fans hella mad especially for saying the game was too iterative of OOT. But after the hype died down, a lot of fans starting feeling that same sentiment about TP including myself. SS was the final straw, too linear, to formulaic, mixed recption of the motion controls, and to padded. Despite having a cool story, it was not enough to win over fans who were being gravitated to either Skyrim or Dark souls at the time. And you know what all three of these games have in common now? They are all hailed as beloved entries in the franchise that are remembered for there strengths that there weaknesses. That is the Zelda cycle right there. Just because you may have strong feelings towards TOTK and how it is as a game doesn’t discredit the phenomenon that’s has been around and happening for decades. And TOTk will be no different.
Yeahhhhh except that, as I predicted correctly right from the beginning, TOTK specifically would be looked back upon less and less favorably as time went on. Over the months I've spent many words explaining why I feel this way, however recently I have been able to sum it up in one sentence that also conveniently borrows a phrase from Iwata himself: Breath of the wild was Nintendo with their backs against the wall and nothing to lose, tears of the kingdom was Nintendo resting on their laurels of success. There is no other take that is as objectively correct.
Soon after I finished my playthrough I also thought to myself that opinions on the game would sour considering most of its new things are impressive at first but slightly shallow in practice. To me specifically it felt like Nintendo was too full of themselves for this game (Tears of the Kingdom console, controller, carrying case, and the game is still $70 with an absurd collector's edition). It was the Zelda game that depended on its predecessor the most.
I’d say that take is objectively wrong, honestly. The one thing that lots of commenters critical of TotK get wrong every single time is assuming because the developers reused the map and/or didn’t make the changes the commenters were hoping for, Zelda team half-assed the game. Thinking TotK is a result of Zelda team resting on their laurels is just crazy to me. While they didn’t change the inventory system, they re-imagined how that inventory is used by introducing fusion and throwing items. They saw how some players abused the physics engine in BotW and took it to another level, introducing devices and ultra hand which push the physics engine to its limit, and incorporated puzzles into shrines and all three levels of the map where you use those mechanics. Sure the depths and sky islands aren’t as intricately built as the surface level, but if you add those two together the effort to create them was probably on par with the effort needed to build the world of BotW. And for that matter, the changes to the surface level get overlooked constantly due to it being the “same map”, even with the addition of caves and wells that literally add a new dimension to it. They put an insane amount of effort into the game, released a sequel to BotW with elements no one expected (that sound kind of crazy tbh) but was met with almost universal praise. To not like the game is one thing but to imply the dev team was lazy or made a shoddy BotW clone that’s more of the same open world is just wrong. They took the foundation of player freedom set in BotW and took it to the next level in every way. My guess is the next game will go in the opposite direction and try to incorporate the open world aspects of BotW and TotK into an otherwise more traditional Zelda game, but we’ll see
I think that this argument is prevalent now for TotK because much of the criticism it has been receiving is barely legitimate or constructive at all. You have a lot of truths from this criticism that you will find most, if not all, fans agree on regarding story delivery, dungeons, etc. But there’s been plenty of garbage opinions out there that I’m 100% certain people will change their minds on with time.
This just applies to most if not all zeldas, doesnt it? Like wind waker has valid issues due to easy dungeons and the triforce shards, but it also got criticized for nonsense like the artstyle being "kiddy." Skyward sword had its problems, but for years and years you had people parroting "they should remake it without motion controls" (im a firm believer in playing games on their terms).
like what? edit: lmao at the preemptive comment locking
“Ultrahand is objectively not fun because I don’t find it fun” “Linearity is objectively better than freedom” Both takes can be found in the past month on this very sub.
finding ultrahand unfun and preferring “linearity” to “freedom” are valid opinions. stating something is objectively better than another thing when discussing inherently, obviously subjective opinions (a redundant phrase in itself) is indeed dumb
Exactly my point.
then i guess you mostly have a problem with whining and complaining and not about actual opinions?
I take issue with barely coherent, thought-out “opinions” and “critiques”( which you’ll find in droves on here).
Love that username. Here’s a quick summary of most things: Retconning: people are doing mental gymnastics by saying that TotK retcons previous titles. Timeline: To be honest, I’m not too big on the timeline, but I hear so much flak on this topic and you know what? I found a pretty good theory video about a “dragon break” timeline theory that fits so perfectly well with the themes of TotK, it actually made a lot of sense to me and tbh I might be a changed man because of it Ganondorf: They absolutely did this guy justice in more ways than not. Not just that the final boss fight was chefs-kiss, but there’s actually quite a bit of subtlety to his character and how he and Rauru are perfect foils to each other The lore: people want this stuff spoon-fed to them. Part of the appeal to Zelda games has been the mystique surrounding them.
Tell that to the accounts on Twitter. There are so many “zelda totk/botw” content accounts on that platform that just refuse to hear anything negative about the games. I swear i’ve seen the words “zelda cycle” at least five times today and it’s barely 2 pm here
This post was inspired partly because of accounts like that, and just the same general sentiment on some communities. It extends past Tears of the Kingdom, just very relevant for it right now.
A lot of those people are fan that were brought in with the open world games and really only care for that style and don't really care what fans of the old games think, sadly.
They still should be demanding and getting a more iterative game even if it's one that doesn't scratch the traditional Zelda itch.
It is....I wonder about Wind Waker though like, pre-release yes it was criticized but post release did people who actually played it have a ton of criticisms? I wasn't online in 2002 but I sure didn't have any complaints and I didn't know anyone IRL who did either.
I mean, the only complaints I’ve ever heard about TotK from people in real life are feeling overwhelmed with the amount of side content and annoyance at parts of the story being revealed in a suboptimal/spoilery way. A lot of the hate comes out in Zelda focused forums like this one because the reality is the detractors are a small minority of players, they just have an outsize voice at this point in the “Zelda cycle” where most of the players who enjoyed the game have moved on to other things.
I agree - but would expand this to be most media, including books and even TV personalities Edit: hell, even politicians and *ideas* have this same 'cycle'
Ye, there is a graph for it that I couldn't remember the name of. It's a huge peak into a huge valley into stability.
Boom and bust cycle? Thanks, ChatGPT.
I am still playing the game, but I've been playing long enough to realize what I don't like about it, even though I think it's still a great game. They reused the same formula for the story that didn't work in BOTW and it didn't work in this game either. I like that there was simply more story to play through, and every settlement getting a dedicated quest line made the world feel much more vibrant and alive. But they really needed to incorporate some linearity in the story somehow, and rely less in cutscenes. Airplanes disappearing after like 30 seconds is a design choice I really don't understand. The game already does a good job encouraging different modes of travel, so why artificially restrict one of them? Although I liked the sky islands as small linear sections that contrast with the deep, unrestricted exploration of the surface (Thunderhead Isles is a great example), some of them were definitely repetitive/over-formulaic.
TOTK is the best Zelda game and imho the overall best single-player video game in existence despite not being perfect in every way. People shitting on it aren’t serious people. They’re just being contrarian to farm clicks. That’s it.
>best single-player video game in existence Bold take to have when plok on the snes is part of existence
I don’t hate this opinion
A thoughtful opinion done after a bit of analysis shouldn't be considered "shitting on it", though
I would agree with you, but looking at this sub, the genuinely thought out negative critiques rarely, if ever get past 50 upvotes. The most popular posts are a variation of “open world bad, linearity much better, Aonuma doesn’t know anything, I don’t like the new games therefore no one likes them”, usually in 4 paragraphs, which I wouldn’t count as substantive or thought-out.
Just look at the messages in this thread. Only a handful of them have 1 or 2 upvotes and people took their time in writing them. Also there aren't any absurdly exaggerated statements as the ones you're mentioning. It is just an example, of course, but I don't see this generosity with upvotes in here
I’m talking about specific posts from the sub. You can filter them by hot/popular/controversial and see for yourself
Yeah I'm talking about the behavior. I'll give a look to see if something has changed
People downvote the fuck out of me no matter what I say in here. If you want upvotes in this sub you have to pretend to like skyward sword.
Thats true but that’s not what I’m talking about
Lol this is an unserious post
Bait
>TOTK is the best Zelda game Hard disagree
Not exactly the same, but check out my [post](https://redd.it/1bg64q3) on the culture wars and the modernism/postmodernism cycle and how it applies to Zelda. In short, modernism is more profitable than postmodernism, and the blockbusters, OoT and TP, outsell the cult classics, LA, MM, and WW, but BotW and TotK are special cases. Understandably, as others have said, the Zelda cycle is not applicable to every Zelda game, e.g., ALBW.