Then, Now and Forever

Then:

Breath of the wild has never really struck me as a ‘masterpiece’. Is it a good game? Definitely, but it has always been given titles that I’ve never thought have truly described the game properly. ‘Innovative’, ‘legendary’, ‘revolutionary’, and the list goes on. But what did I think of the game when it came out? It’s alright I guess. Nothing that hasn’t been done before…

You play as link yet again, with Zelda being trapped with calamity ganon. Your mission is to defeat ganon and put an end to the calamity in hyrule. A pretty simple plot which has been described as simple yet expansive and I couldn’t agree more. After the tutorial you’re basically allowed to do whatever you want. You want to go to the other side of the world? Go for it. You want to go straight to the castle and finish the game? Sure. You want to get killed by enemies and guardians every few meters? I don’t think you have a choice on that one. The game is free for you to do whatever you want. But it’s not like this is anything new right?

The problem I have is that people declare botw to be this ‘revolutionary’ and ‘timeless’ game when it’s just taken ideas from other games and refined them to not only fit Zelda, but to fit a wide audience. I’m not complaining about it, I admire the idea that they took ideas from Zelda and other games and almost refined them and meshed them together…but it isn’t necessarily revolutionary. Take the idea of going straight to the final boss. It seems quite cool and unique, but If you think about it then it’s just a really extreme version of skipping side quests and sticking with the main scenario. Things like climbing, stamina, weapon durability, wet surfaces, gliding with a glider, mini dungeons, and crafting have all been done before. So in my humble opinion botw shouldn’t be seen as this ‘revolutionary’ title. It’s great, and I’m not challenging that. But it just might not be what people label it as.

There was something I once said to a friend of mine. I distinctly remember him saying that botw was timeless and is a modern day masterpiece. I agreed it was a good game but I also said that as an open world game, something will always come along and overshadow it. I knew for a fact that when the right open world game came, it would blow botw out of the water and finally show that it’s not all these titles it was displayed as. Maybe at the time they were correct, but nothing stays like that forever.

Now:

I called it. 5 years ago I called it but I never expected it to be overshadowed by its own sequel, and definitely not this well. Tears of the kingdom has truly shown that bigger probably does mean better. But where does this leave botw? Well, I thought I’d have another look and see how different the game is and see if any of my points were proven 5 years ago.

As I had said before, breath of the wild has many systems that have been done before…just not as well. Tears of the kingdom also takes this approach, taking ideas from other games and refining them. But the best part about it is they genuinely do feel revolutionary. The ability to attach things to weapons is a cool and exciting way of doing things and building vehicles is also very cool. So going back to botw almost feels like a joke. Your movement feels very limited compared to totk and I’m surprised about it if I’m quite honest. Battling also feels quite tame and monotonous compared to totk’s ideas. Coming back to botw feels honestly like a chore when you’ve played totk and it honestly feels quite sad. A game that was so highly regarded is probably going to sink because of its sequels success.

The story of botw is still great but I feel it doesn’t carry the game as much as you think it would. It’s an open world game, the story isn’t going to be that big of a part other than lore and world building. The gameplay is always going to be the main selling point of an open world game and unfortunately compared to totk it feels quite tame and pathetic compared to it. If I said ‘I told you so’ I’d seem like someone very big for my boots and trust me when I say I’m not. I’m surprised as everyone else that’s its sequel could be this good. It’s a shame because I do feel that botw does have some great aspects, but they’ve become highly overshadowed.

Forever:

So is breath of the wild still as good as people say? Kind of.
Sure it has been outdone by its sequel and completely put it in its place but it still has something there. If people were going to go into the series I would still recommend them playing it first. Botw is a very strong first Zelda game and one I think still kind of stands the test of time. As a Zelda game it is almost like a modern day ocarina of time. But, even oot has its flaws and it has aged. But that can go for any game and botw nor oot is just ‘any game’.
So is botw still a ‘timeless and ‘revolutionary’ game? No, but it has heart, and that isn’t something you can say about every game.

Great story, decent gameplay, cool world, nothing new, currently overshadowed, and fuck those korok seeds