#and everything is the same as botw

[no-thanks-bro]

Wish I could sell my digital games 🫥 I don't want tears of the kingdom oops sorryyyy

[ultimateinferno]

I know the Zelda Timeline is hardly the most popular thing out there, but for me, it's always been endlessly fascinating. Everything is the same. It's all different. It's linear. It's cyclical. It branches and twists and comes back together. It disregards its predecessors. It can't let them go. It thrashes against change. It can't stay the same.

Every game is a reboot.

But they're also not.

I think the story of The Legend of Zelda is the epitome of narrative doublethink. In order to truly buy in, you must accept the simultaneous facets that none of the games matter to one another and that they all do. They're the same story. They're absolutely not.

The thing about the timeline, to me, by being both codified and nebulous, is what ties this cow tools of a narrative together. It's a puzzle without a box. It's total fucking nonsense, but so is reality. Things won't ever truly make sense, but what if they did. What if we took it from a new angle and... hmm. No. That won't work

Or maybe...

Ultimately, the Zelda Timeline is quite simply a farcical creative writing prompt. A dare. A challenge. To take these pieces not designed to fit together and give them order. Do the writers themselves care? Absolutely not. I do, though. So fuck it.

[ganondoodle]

seeing a speedrun of botw all dungeons and even like that .... its so strange how soulless totk feels to me when botw didnt, allthough it feels much flatter to me now since i know there wasnt any thought put into the things i thought were meaningful and that it will go nowhere in the end

and yet still it feels like its got soul that totk just hasnt; botw is far from perfect, like everything really, but totk to me really feels like a clunky grind game with no trust in the player at all, be it puzzles or 'story', and a fundamental missunderstanding of why botws world design and structure worked well as a whole in the end

i honestly still cant quite understand how on earth botw got totk as its 'sequel', all the things that needed work in botw where neglected or made worse totk while it also failed to follow up on literally anything in a meaningful way- when i still think the changes it needed where so OBVIOUS and the directions to follow up and expand on things to enhance not just the sequel but also botw in retrospect where so plenty and ready for the taking, it hurts me still even to think about it not being done and everything really being actively thrown away for NOTHING or things that make it AND botw WORSE in retrospect instead

i wont ever be able to forgive that, and some part of me hopes that this is the worst that they will ever do so at least we will get better games again in the future

[creetveur]

Our last hope

[rawliverandgoronspice]

me everytime anyone on youtube begins their take about totk saying it's "one of the best stories in the franchise"

[threefuckencrowsinaleatherjacket]

My craziest flex rn is that irl I have a rly rly weird name (not usually sm I flex but bear with me 😭) that isn’t English and i recently (3 minutes ago) discovered a shrine in breath of the wild WITH MY NAME HAHA REBLOG IF UR IN ZELDA MFERS 🫵😂

[blueskittlesart]

any thoughts on how once again zelda was robbed of her agency because her "father figure" didn't listen to her? even if rauru was kinder to her than her father. and that she had sonia who was patient and loving for a little while before she died (just like her mother). i know rauru apologizes for his hubris but still, i wish we saw zelda be upset about it. and even if zelda was such a big part of the quest she still literally sacrificed her humanity once again because of someone else's mistake- because rauru literally didn't listen to the girl from the future that warned you that shit was going to go down. o know nintendo just loves putting zelda inside crystals and stones but i wish we got something better. even if it was her decision to become a dragon... did she have any other choice? it really just feels like they robbed her of agency again just like botw and the games before

i've been trying to figure out how to answer this one. because there are two ways i could analyze this plot point, either from a writer's perspective or an in-story perspective, but neither of those lead to me fully agreeing with your interpretation? I think there's definitely something to be said about zelda consistently being pushed aside in these games, but. well. ok let's get into it ig

from a writer's perspective, I do honestly have quite a bit of sympathy for the zelda devs as they attempt to navigate the modern political landscape with these games. The cyclical lore, though canonized relatively recently, holds them to a standard of consistency in their games in terms of certain key elements. one of those key elements is that there has to be a princess, and that princess must somehow be the main macguffin of the game. The player must chase her, and the end goal of the game must be to reunite the player and the princess. In 1986 this was an incredibly easy sell. women didn't need to be characters. players were content with saving a 2-dimensional princess whose only purpose was to tell them "good job!" at the end. but as society advances, that princess becomes a much more difficult character to write while adhering to the established overarching canon. (as a side note: i don't necessarily believe that the writers SHOULD be held to the standards of that canon. I think deviating from it in certain areas would be a good change of pace. but i also recognize that deviations from the formula are widely hated by the loz playerbase and that they're trying to make money off these games, so we're working under the established rule that the formula must be at least loosely adhered to.) Modern fans want a princess who is a person, who has agency and makes decisions and struggles in the same way the hero does. but modern fans ALSO want a game that follows the established rules of the canon. so we need a princess who is a real character but who can ALSO serve as a macguffin within the narrative, something that is inherently somewhat objectifying.

the two games that i think do the best job writing a princess with agency are skyward sword and botw (based on your ask, our opinions differ there lol. hear me out) in both games, we have a framing event which seperates zelda and link, but in both games, that separation was ZELDA'S CHOICE. skyward sword zelda runs away from link out of fear of hurting him. botw zelda chooses to return to the castle alone to allow link the time he needs to heal. sksw kinda fumbled later on by having ghirahim kidnap her anyway, but. i said BEST not PERFECT. botw zelda I think is the better example because, with the context of the memories, she's arguably MORE of a character than link is. we see her struggles, her breakdowns, her imperfection, specifically we see her struggle with her lack of agency within the context of the game itself. when she steps in front of link in the final memory, and when she chooses to return to the castle, those are some of the first choices we see her make almost completely free of outside influence; a RECLAMATION of her agency (within the narrative) after years of having it stripped from her. from an objective viewer's standpoint, this writing decision still means she is absent from 90% of the game and that she has little control over her actions for the duration of the player's journey. however I think this is just about the best they could have done to create a princess with agency and a real character arc while still keeping the macguffin formula intact--you're not really SAVING zelda in botw. SHE is the one that is saving YOU; when you wake up on the plateau with no memories, too weak to fight bokoblins, let alone calamity ganon. the reason you are allowed to train and heal in early-game botw is because SHE is in the castle holding ganon back, protecting YOU. When you enter the final fight, you're not rescuing zelda, you're relieving her of her duty. taking over the work she's been doing for the past hundred years. in the final hour, you both work in tandem to defeat ganon. while this isn't a PERFECT example of a female character with agency and narrative weight, i think it's a pretty good one, especially in the context of save-the-princess games like loz.

as for totk, you put a lot of emphasis on rauru not believing zelda and taking action immediately, which, again, from an objective standpoint, i understand. but even when we're writing characters with social implications in mind, those character's actions still need to... make sense. Rauru was a king ruling over what he believed to be a perfectly peaceful kingdom. zelda literally fell out of the sky, landed in front of him, claimed to be his long-lost granddaughter, and then told him that some random ruler of a fringe faction in the desert was going to murder him and he had to get the jump on it by killing him first. the ruler which this girl is trying to convince rauru to wage an unprompted war on has the power to disguise himself as other people. no one in their right mind would immediately take the girl at her word. war is not something any leader should jump into without proper research and consideration, and to rauru's credit, he DIDN'T ever outright dismiss zelda. he believed her when she said she was from the future, he allowed her to work with him and he took her warnings as seriously as he could without any further proof. but he could not wage an unprompted war on ganondorf. that's just genuinely not practical, especially for a king who values peace among his people as much as rauru seems to. as soon as ganondorf DID attack, giving rauru confirmation that zelda's accounts of the future were real, he began making preparations to confront him. remember that zelda didn't KNOW that rauru and sonia were going to be casualties of the war--she didn't make the connection between rauru's arm in the future and rauru the king until AFTER sonia's death, when rauru made the decision to attack ganondorf directly. I think the imprisoning war and the casualties of it were less an issue of zelda being denied agency and more an issue of no one, including zelda, having full context for the events as they were unfolding. if zelda had KNOWN that sonia and rauru were going to die from the beginning and was still unable to prevent it that would be a different issue, but she didn't. none of them did.

I think another thing worth pointing out with rauru and his death irt zelda is that rauru is clearly written specifically as a foil to rhoam. this is evident in how he treats both zelda and link, with a constant kindness and understanding which is clearly opposite to rhoam's dismissiveness and disappointment. consider rhoam's death and the circumstances surrounding it. He died because, in zelda's eyes, she was unable to do her duty; the one thing he constantly berated her for. Rhoam's death solidified zelda's belief that she was a failure, a belief which she KNEW rhoam held as well. his death was doubly traumatic to her because she knew he died believing it was her fault. Now contrast that to the circumstances surrounding rauru's death. Rauru CHOSE to die despite zelda's warnings, because he wanted zelda and his kingdom to live. rauru's death was not agency-stripping for zelda; in fact, it functioned almost as an admission that he believed her capable of continuing to live in his place. With him gone, the fate of the kingdom fell to her and the sages. he KNEW that he would die and still went into that battle confidently, trusting zelda to make the right decisions once he was gone. where rhoam believed zelda incapable of doing ANYTHING without link, rauru trusted zelda COMPLETELY with the fate of his kingdom. several details in totk confirm that when rauru died there was no plan for zelda to draconify, that all happened after rauru was gone. it was HER plan, the plan which rauru trusted her to come up with once he was gone. and I think it's also worth noting that zelda's sacrifice with the draconification parallels rauru's!! Rauru gives up his life trusting the sages and his people to be able to continue his work in his place. Zelda gives up her physical form trusting link and the sages in the future to be able to figure out what to do and find her. these games in general have this recurring theme but totk specifically is all about love and trust and reliance on others. zelda relies on link, link relies on zelda, they both rely on the champions and the sages and rauru and sonia and they all rely each other. reliance on others isn't lack of agency, it's a constant choice they make, and that choice is the thing which allows them to triumph.

The draconification itself is something i view similarly to zelda's sacrifice in botw--a choice she makes which, symbolically & within the confines of the narrative, is a demonstration of her reclaimed agency and places her at the center of the narrative, but which ALSO removes her from much of the player's experience and robs her of any overt presence or decisionmaking within the gameplay. again, I think this is a solution to the macguffin-with-agency dilemma, and it's probably one of the better solutions they could have come up with. Would I have liked to see a game where zelda is more present within the actual gameplay? yes, but I also understand that at this point the writers aren't quite willing to deviate that much from their formula. the alternative within the confines of this story would be to let zelda DIE in the past, removing her from gameplay ENTIRELY, which is an infinitely worse option in my opinion. draconification allowed her to be present, centered the narrative around her, and allowed the writers to reiterate the game's theme of trust and teamwork when she assists the player in the final battle, which i think was a REALLY great choice, narratively speaking.

In any case, I don't think it's right to say that zelda was completely robbed of her agency in botw and totk. Agency doesn't always mean that she's unburdened and constantly present, it means she's given the freedom to make her own choices and that her choices are realistically written with HER in mind, not just the male characters around her, and I think botw/totk do a pretty good job of writing her and her choices realistically and with nuance.

[beeskneesntrees]

Fine.

I'm just gonna say it.

Tears Of The Kingdom should've been a DLC.

[1tsjusty0u]

man. totk couldve been so good

[daily-tvs]

Daily TV #107: Master Sword

First Previous Next

[starpil0tblue]

the fact that there aren’t more “Teba highkey lowkey adopts Link” fics is killing me. i am wasting away. i crave family feels. Link’s been so alone in BOTW please give him some parental figures and a little brother. and if they’re already on it, they can take Zelda in too. please. please. fambily...

[messmagu]

Link sketches cause I'm playing entirely too much totk

[ganondoodle]

kind of expected that the ability breakdown wouldnt get that much traction (especially on twitter bc if it doesnt do well in the first few hours it might as well be dead) but what i didnt need to wake up to was looking at my twitter notifications and thinking there was a long comment on it at first but then i read it and it turned out to be some guy having dug up one of my old totk tweets where i talked about how zelda was treated-

and if a quote retweet with a thread attached already starts with "this entitled brat didnt understand that zelda was being a history nerd by being in the past and getting to experience it herself" with two screenshots attached of the end of totk with zelda staring at the cam all uwu (which has ??? to do with their point??) i dont even want to know what else was in that thread

if thats how the majority of the fandom is then im even less surprised that nintendy doesnt even have to try to write anything good :I

ah yes, i am a game nerd, and by putting me in a game where i stand around doing puppy dog eyes while being shoved around by NPCs is me being a game nerd OBVIOSULY

[anarchopuppy]

After all these years, the Zelda series has reached its full potential

[rawliverandgoronspice]

realizing I'm very sensitive to pacing, actually

[foxgirltail]

Pre botw Zelda games gave you like 10 to 20 things in your toolkit to splay the game and solve puzzles.

Breath of the wild gives you 4. Tears of the kingdom gives you 4. I sorta suspect that this Link game will have 4 as well, although we only know of the copy ability

Counting and images below the cut, this got long

Even if we're being generous and include weapon types, bomb types, and shields, breath of the wild still has less unique items/upgrades in it than like, ocarina of time or twilight princess

Ocarina of time:

Deku stick

Deku nut

Bomb and bomchu

Bow and arrow (4 types)

Slingshot

Ocarina

Hookshot

Boomerang

Secret revealer

Plant seed (consumable item used for puzzle solving)

Massive hammer

3 spells

Regular and Big sword (and kid sword)

Shield and magic shield (and kid shield)

Situational attire (Heavy boots, Flying boots, Underwater outfit, fireproof outfit)

Twilight princess:

Bombs (3 types)

Bow and arrow (2 types i think)

Telescope

Ball and chain

Iron boots

Hookshot (and double)

Gale boomerang

Control scepter

Lantern

Horse whistle

Slingshot

Spinner

Sword (various)

Shield (various)

Situational attire

Dungeon fast travel method

Breath of the wild:

Magnesis

Stasis

Cryonis

Bombs (2 types)

Various Swords

Various 2 handed swords

Various Spears

Various Shield

Various Bow and arrows (6 types of arrow if you include the bow of light I guess)

4 spells (champion abilities)

Situational attire (traversal, weather, combat, stealth, and gimmick)

Fast travel method

Tears of the kingdom:

Ultra hand

Ultrahand autobuild

Fuse

Ascend

Recall

Various swords

Various 2 handed swords

Various spears

Various shields

Various bow and arrows (many types of arrows due to fuse, nothing dedicated though)

5 champion abilities (and phantoms)

Situational attire (same groups as botw, but more of them)

Fast travel method

Even minish cap, the 2d Gameboy game, looks like it has a comparative number of abilities to botw and totk

Sword

Gust jar

Flip rod

Boomerang (upgradeable)

Shield (upgradeable)

Lantern

Bombs (upgradeable)

Speed boots

Jumping ability

Ocarina (fast travel method)

Bow and arrow

Ability to swim

Ability to pick up roadblocks (upgradeable)

Totals:

Oot: 15

TP: 16

Minish cap: 13

Totk: 13

Botw: 12

I did some condensing for outfits and weapons (there's way more outfits and weapons in botw and totk, obviously), but it's clear that if I removed all swords (or melee botw/totk weapons), shields, and outfits since they're so "basic" and not really "tools" from all of the games lists, botw and totk would be very behind

Is there more you can do in botw and tears of the kingdom? More ways to solve the same problem? Sure, absolutely

But both games very much feel like they have a handful of core abilities that the devs wanted to show off in their physics engine rather than like. Puzzles and dungeons with an intention similar to previous Zelda iterations

The new Link game feels sorta similar. "Here's a gimmick we came up with that we think is cool and can do a lot. Let's make a whole legend of zelda game about it, because it'll sell better that way than independently"