#so if you didn't know about the sidequest ahead of time the chances of you getting locked out of it by some mistake go up

[timegears-moved]

i gotta rant about how much i hate the mega z-ring sidequest from a game design standpoint hold on

[rawliverandgoronspice]

"…minimize the toll of time taken on both of them the same way it did for Zelda, especially since they semi-turn to stone immediately after. There are a lot of dialogue bits that feel like they are here for damage control and reassure us that the nice things are nice and the bad things are bad…"

So much yesssss. I honestly wonder if they did that because the story plays in a way where Link at no point feels like an active participant in any of what is happening.

Like "Oh yes there are consequences… but don't worry nothing is really gonna happen until we're in the present time with Link." It's weird how it almost feels like the game doesn't even acknowledge calamity Ganon. Not saying we need this huge cutscene about it, but imagine just showing Calamity Ganon being born at the same time as Zelda turns into a dragon. Showing the immediate negative consequences, and how Hyrule now has to wait millennia for totk-Link to finish what was started.

Hey, thanks for the ask, and sorry for the wait!

Yeah, I think there *was* a way to connect past and present more efficiently --using the past as revealing new information to guide objectives in the present-- but I think it would have gone against their open world philosophy (which didn't really mesh with the kind of story they tried to tell). As a consequence, nothing in the present really happens either honestly? The consequence to restoring a region involves giving you a tactical advantage and having some key players moving to the main Lookout Camp, but fundamentally you could skip all of it and lose almost nothing plot-wise, because the philosophy is: you can beat the game in any way you want.

And while I think it worked for BotW, where rediscovering that world you lost is never mandatory but it does give you emotional stakes in the fight ahead on top of helping you prepare your final battle, here it just feels... meandery? Your main goal is to find Zelda, but you don't actually have to find Zelda. You can finish the whole game without having invested a single thought into finding Zelda beyond the tutorial area. The overarching objective to Destroy Ganon worked in BotW because it remained the core pillar all the way, literally staring you in the eye from all across the map: every other quest objective is nested in the first one and optional by default, and it is made abundantly clear what the game expects of you while guiding you to opportunities to make your journey easier and more grounded as you rediscover Hyrule (gradually mastering the land, your own abilities, and your understanding of your place in that land to give you the best possible chance --mastering the Wild and becoming part of it, if you may).

But here? The game *tries* to hide its core objective (which is to Destroy Ganondorf: this is what actually triggers the ending credits sequence, not finding Zelda, which triggers... nothing at all actually) in a mystery the game... isn't actually that invested in gameplay-wise.

For example: you go handle the issues in the various regions because there are problems to fix and maybe you'll get information on where she is, which is honestly an assumption that is kind of based on... nothing? Why would the ritos facing an unnatural ice storm or the gorons facing a drug problem give you a clue on Zelda's location? Like yes, surely there is something weird going on and it might be linked to the same phenomenon that made Zelda disappear, but what makes you think going there will give you any hint of where she is? Honestly, the Lucky Clover sidequests almost feel like they should be the main quest given they actually involve Zelda sightings directly, but the fact that the game extra-diegetically categorize them as sidequests lets you immediately know these are all red herrings before you actually complete them...

But honestly: it would make sense to go look for her.... where she was last seen. Which is under Hyrule's Castle. And I didn't go there immediately, not because the game convinced me it was not necessary, or was too dangerous and I wasn't prepared yet, but because I knew for sure it was where Ganondorf would be, and so I pretended to be stupid so I would let the game lead me to its interest points while ignoring the glowing red hole under the core landmark of Hyrule where I had last seen Zelda and Ganondorf.

Sure, there was a glowing red boar in BotW screeching into the night, but. The game told me it's where the final boss was. Immediately. It was not trying to surprise me with that information. TotK, on the other hand, does an awkward little song and dance being like "oooooo I wooonder what you'll have to dooooo neeeext" and... it's pretty damn lame that I need to consciously course-correct the bad job the game does at leading me places to have a good time with it, using game design literacy to assume what I should and shouldn't do not to ruin my own experience as I play (same could be said for the Dragon's Tears as well, and it does an even worse job at it since I *did* spoil myself almost immediately, because I trusted the open world philosophy to carry into the memories like in BotW --and the fact that they are linear??? somehow?? without telling you and it's the only linear thing in the entire game?? is just so so so Not Good).

When I say the quest design of this game is a complete mess, I do mean it. It's layers upon layers of these baffling decisions, and I don't understand why they didn't apply any of the lessons learned in Breath of the Wild, given they were genuinely good and interesting lessons that have guided open world quest design ever since the game was released.