#I don't know there is this sort of vague contempt for zelda lore/story enjoyers that permeate a lot of the discourse

[rawliverandgoronspice]

https://www.tumblr.com/rawliverandgoronspice/718014251940315136?source=share

Ill be honest and say i think the removal of sheikah related lore was not for internal weird racist reasons and instead simply for game design reasons, why the zonai tech is so similar in concept and execution. totk is a sequel and also a redux, they needed technology for mechanics and a reason for the world to change and introducing an entirely new race of characters would be the perfect scapegoat. it feels like it ignores botw almost entirely because 1) new players 2) to be a finished version of botw more mechanics and more content. the narrative was barely a thing in this game because what mattered the most was design and gameplay above all else. i don't think caring about gameplay first particularly bad, it's a fun game they will probably revolutionize the industry once again, and that nintendo doesn't care about lore at all but it really wasn't the priory here at least that's how I felt when i play the game. i adore the overworld and the npcs but the main quest (tears) story itself is very stale. best praise i can give to it is character design and zeldas sacrifice/how they handled her and link that's literally it (vague because i don't know if you've gotten there yet, it's after the completion of the tears quest and getting the master sword). zelda lore at this point is a sandbox and us fans will do what we want with it. sorry for the ramble!

Hey, thanks for the ask!

So I sort of agree, especially on the first part. I absolutely believe that yes, sheikah were not sidelined for malicious reasons, and the ease of just having one super-powerful ultratech culture you rely on was cleaner than having the old relics hanging around. I actually think it's the cleanest choice to make (one that would have been *even cleaner* would have been to write a story and think of a world that reinvent its landmarks based on that new ideas of archeology and the past bursting back into the present, which is theme that coats the game but doesn't ever permeates it). I still think any acknowledgement that it used to exist would have enriched a world that has, ultimately, very little new things to teach us about itself (I have scoured the Depths a bunch, and it's a combat/exploration hotspot, and that's cool but also what a missed opportunity to try some proper FromSoftware-style worldbuilding down there!). I don't think this would have confused new players; if anything it could have hinted at more and gave the new players any reason to pick up Breath of the Wild? But: the world is a playground! That's cool. I think it could be a much more meaningful playground, that's all. There's a category of players who kind of need some light modicum of internal consistency to be invested in exploration, and will just get bored otherwise (I have seen a bunch of people making this exact remark, and honestly... yeah, there are areas in the game I'm not interested in exploring just because I know it's a consequenceless challenge in the end --I'm just not the kind of player that is hooked by a game loop on its own merit, I need to understand what I'm building towards or I lose interest. It's the kind of thing that wouldn't have changed anything to a regular TotK's enjoyer experience, but would have greatly enriched the experience of players like me)

Still think that making Sheikahs a subset of hylians was a very weird choice. Not an outright malicious one, but one that does build up with all of the other weird choices and make this Hyrule feel like a revisionist Hyrule; and one they simply... didn't have to make.

(I'll maybe do another post about this, but there are so many things in this game that would be very confusing to a new player either way also --but that's kind of going into another territory)

I disagree about one general point, however, and I may get offtrack here a little but I guess you gave me an excuse to rant a little about how narrative design is perceived by the general public and what has been frustrating to witness in regards to the conversation surrounding this game from my perspective.

Mainly, this notion that "they had no other choice" because they chose to prioritize gameplay. I'm going to overshare a little (again sorry) but I work in gamedev in real life; I am actually a narrative designer that did quest design and game writing on a couple of games, some of them that also qualify as AAA open worlds. I think it's completely fair to see this game from a player perspective as a series of compromises struck to privilege the aspect of the game they were the most confident with --however, it is literally my real life job to walk through situations that can be extremely similar to this one and find solutions that weave narration with fun experiences game and level designers managed to put together. It doesn't mean that story has to swallow gameplay: if anything, narrative designers always try to privilege mechanics first and treat them as narrative devices in their own right before whipping out the actual cutscenes and the constant writing (and this game was somehow under AND overwritten in my opinion, especially in English --so I don't think it even solved this aspect?). This is not at all aimed at you in particular but at the internet at large; it ends up being quite grating to see assumptions being made about what can and can't be done in non-linear narrative as like, a fact of the universe instead of it being a specific field that deserve research and investment just like any other graphical advancement or intricate interactive feature, and explain away poor design decisions by the strange notion that they had no other choice, as if Nintendo studios aren't comprised of a bunch of humans who made active and passive choices. Like, I worked on very similar issues. There are solutions to how you feed information to the player in a non-linear way. There are ways to maximize impact and depth, even when you let the player guide the story. Again: it's fine if it doesn't bug you or a lot of people --but there are flaws. It happens. It's gamedev. It's a miracle any game is made at all --and this one is its own sort of miracle. What strikes me as strange is that I never see that level of excuses made for companies that do not cultivate that same image of being an unapproachable, united workforce, that get instead torn to shreds at the slightest sideway brush --but that's another subject maybe (maybe).

Narrative design is this thing that, when it's not there, people don't realize it could be; and when it is there, people take it for granted unless it's very visibly front and center like in Edith Finch or Disco Elysium or any other number of indie games (generally it's the indies who do all the research and development and take all of the risks on that front --like seriously I worked in narrative-driven studios, known for their narrative games, where 2/3 of the game designers couldn't care less about emotional impact beyond satisfaction/frustration/boredom, and it's infinitely frustrating (heh) to have your specialization considered optional fluff when you know how far thematic cohesion can push a game when handled well ANYWAY anyway). So: I was always going to care about the way they handled narrative, because it's how I'm wired, what I research, and I also played this game in part because I was very curious on how they'd push their explorations of BotW's possibilities, which were very interesting if a little limited. Needless to say, this was a let down. And I think it's not unreasonable to have higher narrative standards than this.

I do want to autocorrect myself on a statement I put out before, however, that being the notion that not enough research was put into narrative. I think I want to push forward a new theory that sounds much more plausible to me (again based on nothing but speculation and weird déjà-vu vibes, which is perhaps why I care that much :) :) ), and that being: a lot of research was done, and then cut. It seems very plausible the narrative used to be much more ambitious than this --and then, for one reason or another, somebody panicked, or the thing got out of hand, or they couldn't get it to work exactly right, and everything was downscoped pretty late into production. Six years of development is a long time, and I don't think anyone with the standards of a Nintendo employee would have been happy with handling the storyline the way it was. It kinda feels like a rushed cobble-up of loose threads after a massive downsizing, leaving plot holes and suboptimal emotional experience. Again: just a theory, no proof at all. But I absolutely wouldn't be surprised, and it would explain a lot of things.