[Megathread] Nintendo Switch

[jackofwind]

Skyward Sword didn't even sell 4 million copies with its first release. The Wii was a hugely popular console, and only about 3% of Wii owners owned Skyward Sword. Even the remake of Link's Awakening for the Switch sold more copies. In fact, even combining the first and rerelease of Skyward Sword, the remake of Link's Awakening is only about a million units behind. (And keep in mind both the remake of Link's Awakening and Skyward Sword HD are in the post BotW world).

Also, wasn't the title before Breath of the Wild. You had two other games besides rereleases between Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild (seriously, the fact you think Skyward Sword was the Zelda game before Breath of the Wild is evidence for my point.) There was a Link between Worlds (A somewhat sequel to a Link to the Past), and Triforce Heroes. Also, you have Wind Waker HD and Twilight Princess HD releases and Majora's Mask 3D for the 3DS.

Also, it is funny you whine about people not reading your posts and you failed to read mine. My point wasn't Zelda would be a dead franchise, but a niche one if not dead. (meaning that death was possible, not likely). How acclaimed a game is doesn't mean the franchise is alive and well, that is based on sales. Breath of the Wild sold nearly 3 times as many units as the best selling Zelda game (Ocarina of Time if you combine both the original and 3D releases) and almost 4 times as much as the prior best single release (Twilight Princess). Objectively the best thing for Zelda series was the break the mold, you personally don't have to like it but it objectively move the series into a better position.

I should have said Skyward Sword was the previous home console entry, you got me there. Arguing the hair-splitting semantics of "niche, if not dead franchise" vs "dead franchise" is so utterly stupid that I'm not even going to bother engaging with you on it.

[Northern Goblin]

The linear dungeon progression game of older Zeldas (and yes they were linear, you approached them in a set order, even if you could use the items inside some of them to then go to the next, you couldn't access them out of order) was stifling to the modern style of game.

Both Breath and Tears have taken the puzzle and combat systems from dungeons and put them into global gameplay. Bosses have been replaced with world fights (as well as the few remaining temple/divine beast bosses) that feel more natural, giving a world life, whereas having a bunch of instances where all the action is and the rest of the world feeling relatively dead.

The puzzles got shifted into hundreds of shrines, and multiple events around the main world. There are more puzzles in the Switch games than there ever has been in Zelda games of the past.

I understand people would like to see more dungeons, and perhaps in future there will be, but they shouldn't go back to the era of lineal dungeon progression. Maybe make them optional, much like the labyrinths are now, with great rewards.

The series has evolved, and while it's lost some things along the way, the series is better for it.

I remember people disliking Ocarina compared to LttP and complaining that 3d was bad for the series, change will always come with detractors.

[Darththeo]

I should have said Skyward Sword was the previous home console entry, you got me there. Arguing the hair-splitting semantics of "niche, if not dead franchise" vs "dead franchise" is so utterly stupid that I'm not even going to bother engaging with you on it.

Technically, Twilight Princess HD and Wind Waker HD were home console releases too ... you need to make sure you don't include re-releases in your statement.

And I don't think you understand what hair splitting is because there is a chasm of difference between a dead franchise and a niche franchise that could die (see above: That prior point about re-release is "hair splitting"). It is like saying that being hospitalized and dead are the same thing. Sorry, you're just wrong and can't handle it.

[Linkedblade]

Zelda was stagnant? Skyward Sword (ie: the title before BotW) was critically acclaimed when it came out.

Zelda was in no danger of becoming a dead franchise, that's complete nonsense.

It was "endangered" for a period of time. There was a steady decline in sales of Zelda titles following OoT. MM did well, but WW worse, and FSA was tragically unsuccessful. But I wouldn't say the same for after TP. Skyward sword was a great game, the largest criticism was how much hand holding the game did. Following SS with BotW is shocking, you go from one extreme to the other.

- - - Updated - - -

Except they literally are not. Dungeons are a minority of content in every game And they are a subset of the puzzle solving content that exists in Zelda games. Dungeons are fun, but they aren't what make or breaks a Zelda game.

People overblow how important dungeons are to the Zelda franchise. If you actually look at the entire content of Zelda games, most content isn't dungeon related and this is especially true of the 3D Zelda games. Exploration and Puzzle solving have been a part of the game since the first one, and Dungeons are often a subset of that aspect of the game.

Again, they aren't that big of a part as people think. They are a part, just not as large as people think.

The formula was always: go to all the dungeons for a quest item, unlock the dungeon, do a mini boss, get a key item, get the boss key, kill boss, and repeat with varying degrees of flavor.

Every zelda game up until BotW followed that gameplay formula. Going away from that to a sandbox, with little to no direction, is a shock.

- - - Updated - - -

Disagree that BoTW had "thousands of fresh ideas and new systems". It had a pretty innovative physics system we can all give it that. Outside of that what did it have that other open world games haven't been doing for eons at that point? Are we still acting like no markers on map is revolutionary when rockstar has always done that for hidden content? Hell if exploration with limited map help is an innovation then Kingdom Come Deliverance shits all over BoTW in that regard but I don't see people heralding it as some revolutionary game.

I tip the cap to the physics system, but outside of that there was nothing fresh or new about BoTW that other open world games didn't also achieve. In fact outside of the physics system it's basically a ubisoft open world with the map icons turned off. It even has Ubisoft towers lol.

Tears mops the floor with BoTW and in reality is the game BoTW should have been. It's the same formula but not so fucking obvious about it to the point of copy pasting the same damn puzzles 50 feet apart from each other.

I agree. BotW took from a bunch of other games and made a decently polished zelda game. Perhaps you could say it was revolutionary as it brought a game of its fidelity to a handheld console. Only to be rivaled by the steam deck, which is the only other handheld/portable console with competitive adoption. You could also make the case it was revolutionary to the Zelda series.

[Darththeo]

The formula was always: go to all the dungeons for a quest item, unlock the dungeon, do a mini boss, get a key item, get the boss key, kill boss, and repeat with varying degrees of flavor.

Every zelda game up until BotW followed that gameplay formula. Going away from that to a sandbox, with little to no direction, is a shock.

First off, no, that isn't exactly correct. For example: Wind Waker involved a lot of getting things in the overworld for the dungeons. Yeah, still had the dungeon grind, but many games had puzzles outside of the dungeons as well.

In the 2D games it was far more restrictive it what was in the overworld, but even some games like the Oracle games had a lot of stuff dealing with overworld exploration.

I am not saying Dungeons aren't a part of the formula, but rather than dungeons aren't as big in the formula as people think.

It was "endangered" for a period of time. There was a steady decline in sales of Zelda titles following OoT. MM did well, but WW worse, and FSA was tragically unsuccessful. But I wouldn't say the same for after TP. Skyward sword was a great game, the largest criticism was how much hand holding the game did. Following SS with BotW is shocking, you go from one extreme to the other.

Wind Waker outsold Majora's Mask (even if you include their releases, Wind Waker still out sold it.)

Wind Waker is 9th, and Majora's Mask is 16th.
Source: https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/Lis...ng_Zelda_games

Wind Waker wasn't liked on release because people thought we were going to get a dark gritty Zelda game per that demo that was shown off, and we got cell shaded cartoony Zelda. But, it sold better than Majora's Mask.

Fun fact: The only re-releases to outsell the original release are Link's Awakening on the Switch and Skyward Sword HD. (My source doesn't include Link's awakening for the switch, but according to Wikipedia it is at 6.08 million). Both released post Breath of the Wild, anyone arguing that Breath or the Wild didn't reinvigorate the Zelda franchise is just wrong.

What I find weird is that people Animal Crossing was a niche franchise (not saying I agree) before New Horizons ... but Animal Crossing had two games break 10 millions unit sold before New Horizons something Zelda couldn't do without re-releases until Breath of the Wild.

[Katchii]

Actually, it isn't.

That's what your argument sounds like to me. You don't get to tell me how I think or feel.

That is again you twisting what I said which is ironic that you twisted what I said, stated I twisted what you said only to twist my point again.

I have no idea what you think I'm twisting....

You are arguing against my stance that dungeons aren't the majority of content in a Zelda game

That's not what you said.

I said they were a big part, and your reply simply stated "not as much as you think." And I asked for elaboration.

meaning when you bring up finding the dungeon and getting into it, you are implying that is dungeon content whether that was your intent or not.

I implied nothing. That's you inferring. My specific words were that dungeons were a huge part of the old Zelda formula.

Given that I stated in this topic that Dungeon fall under another aspect of the game ... being the puzzle solving and exploration aspects of the game, I have to assume your action is intentional at this point.

And your analogy fails because the argument is about content, and your example is about story.

Read what I said again. It refers to content (or at least was meant to, since I mentioned the 1 fight..the content he's explicitly part of).

If you want to bring up the story of the Zelda games, the dungeons rarely matter to the overall plot beyond Link needs to go there to move forward in the story and most of the story takes place outside of the dungeons. If someone said that the Lich King was involved in the minority of content for Wrath, that depends where you consider him being involved. Are you counting directly involved or involved at all?

I didn't bring up story. You are. I'm saying your argument sounds like someone arguing that the Lich King has very little to do with the game itself because of how much content specifically has to do with him. Dungeons in Zelda were never the majority of content (that was never my argument), however they played a huge part in the overall formula for the games before BotW. Finding them, getting to them (puzzles, quests, etc...), the bosses inside of them being directly tied to story and items inside being tied to progression, and then the narrative directing you to the next one so you could start the whole process over again.

So, your analogy fails, but even twisting my argument to make it not fail, the result would be dungeons would even less important to Zelda than I actually believe.

OK. But again....you either never understood my point or are purposely twisting what I'm saying to fit your narrative. I've never argued they were the majority of the CONTENT just that they were a pretty integral part to the overall old Zelda formula. They're still somewhat important, the difference now is you don't have to do them linearly and there's a shitload more stuff to do in the open world.

[Tonkaden]

Except they literally are not. Dungeons are a minority of content in every game And they are a subset of the puzzle solving content that exists in Zelda games. Dungeons are fun, but they aren't what make or breaks a Zelda game.

People overblow how important dungeons are to the Zelda franchise. If you actually look at the entire content of Zelda games, most content isn't dungeon related and this is especially true of the 3D Zelda games. Exploration and Puzzle solving have been a part of the game since the first one, and Dungeons are often a subset of that aspect of the game.

Again, they aren't that big of a part as people think. They are a part, just not as large as people think.

You havent played many Zelda games then. Dungeons are always a vital part of each Zelda game. Always has been. Always will be. Just because they add more filler content (like 154 shrines lolol), it doesnt mean that they arent an intricate part of the games. As vital as any other part of the game.

[Darththeo]

You havent played many Zelda games then. Dungeons are always a vital part of each Zelda game. Always has been. Always will be. Just because they add more filler content (like 154 shrines lolol), it doesnt mean that they arent an intricate part of the games. As vital as any other part of the game.

I have played since the NES days.

And you are confusing 'vital' and "majority' those aren't synonyms.

[Tonkaden]

I have played since the NES days.

And you are confusing 'vital' and "majority' those aren't synonyms.

When did I say majority? I never said anything about majority lol. Youre simply downplaying their significance is all.

[Darththeo]

-snip-

Justifying strawmanning by saying "that's how you feel" is garbage tier. I don't give a crap what you feel about my argument, that doesn't give you grounds to strawman it. If I say that isn't my argument, your feelings do not matter because at that point you are telling me what my position and feelings are. You can remove the dungeon and replace them with overworld puzzles and the Zelda games will still have the same feelings for most players. The dungeons aren't that important to Zelda as Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom have proven.

Zelda is an action-adventure game ... the main focus of those games is problem solving. The dungeons were just a vehicle for part of that problem solving, but since LoZ on the NES there has been more puzzles and problems than just the dungeons. They aren't nearly as important as people claim they were. Nothing in your response has discounted that. I am not claiming they were unimportant or not needed, just they aren't as important or as big as people think.

And your response is "But they are involved in the game, therefore important" ... nothing to do with my point. Not as important is not the same thing as not important. Right now, how many Zelda games if you went up to a fan would a dungeon be the first or even second thing they mention? I am sorry, but the fact that you could in theory remove the dungeons and they are not the most recognizable parts of a lot of the games strongly places them in the "not as important as you think" camp.

If they were significantly important to Zelda, it would be impossible to make a Zelda game with more simplistic dungeons ... and yet BotW is the best selling Zelda game and TofK looks to be taking the number 2 spot soon. And they are rated 2 and 3 for Zelda games (1 and 2 is actually arguable if you want to include re-releases in the ratings for game as OoT re-releases would drop it below both BotW and TofK in ratings.)

- - - Updated - - -

When did I say majority? I never said anything about majority lol. Youre simply downplaying their significance is all.

Nah, I am not. They simply aren't as significant as people think. They are just a vehicle for the puzzle solving, nothing more or less.

You can remove them and replace them with overworld puzzle and still have the same feel. Proof: BotW and TofK being the number 1 and 3 selling Zelda games (though TofK may become number 2 soon) and are arguably the 1 and 2 rated Zelda games (OoT N64 release is higher, but if you combine with the re-release it is lower). The games literally let you skip dungeons and even skip parts of dungeons due to how you can move in the game.

[Katchii]

Justifying strawmanning by saying "that's how you feel" is garbage tier. I don't give a crap what you feel about my argument, that doesn't give you grounds to strawman it. If I say that isn't my argument, your feelings do not matter because at that point you are telling me what my position and feelings are.

That's what your argument sounds like to me. If you don't like that, change the way you're saying it.

You can remove the dungeon and replace them with overworld puzzles and the Zelda games will still have the same feelings for most players. The dungeons aren't that important to Zelda as Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom have proven.

Like this. I can agree with that. However, they didn't remove them. The dungeons have an integral part for the franchise, even in BotW and TotK considering the narrative directs you to them as a pretty major part of the story. Replacing the dungeon with overworld content wouldn't change the purpose of said content. I honestly don't know why you're so hung up on them being called "dungeons." It's the place they hold in the story, as a center of activity, a focal point that is full of puzzles, bosses, items, etc... that also drive the narrative forward that make them important. If that content were in the overworld instead, it would be the same thing. But I guess because it wouldn't be called a "dungeon" means that's OK?

Zelda is an action-adventure game ... the main focus of those games is problem solving. The dungeons were just a vehicle for part of that problem solving, but since LoZ on the NES there has been more puzzles and problems than just the dungeons. They aren't nearly as important as people claim they were. Nothing in your response has discounted that. I am not claiming they were unimportant or not needed, just they aren't as important or as big as people think.

And I disagree with this argument.

And your response is "But they are involved in the game, therefore important" ... nothing to do with my point. Not as important is not the same thing as not important. Right now, how many Zelda games if you went up to a fan would a dungeon be the first or even second thing they mention?

Now who's strawmanning? Really?

I am sorry, but the fact that you could in theory remove the dungeons and they are not the most recognizable parts of a lot of the games strongly places them in the "not as important as you think" camp.

That's your assertion, and I disagree with it.

If they were significantly important to Zelda, it would be impossible to make a Zelda game with more simplistic dungeons ... and yet BotW is the best selling Zelda game and TofK looks to be taking the number 2 spot soon.And they are rated 2 and 3 for Zelda games (1 and 2 is actually arguable if you want to include re-releases in the ratings for game as OoT re-releases would drop it below both BotW and TofK in ratings.)

Are you moving goalposts?

I never said anything about size, difficulty, or simplicity just that they play an integral part in the formula of Zelda games.

Here's the thing dude, I'm not saying you're wrong. I just disagree with what you're saying.

[Darththeo]

-Snip-

Dude, I don't care anymore.

You came into this discussion dishonestly and showed your hand. You don't care to know my stance, and never did.

I am done wasting any effort on you.

[Katchii]

Dude, I don't care anymore.

You came into this discussion dishonestly and showed your hand. You don't care to know my stance, and never did.

I am done wasting any effort on you.

I understand your argument just fine. I just disagree with it. I was never dishonest, I've been consistent with my argument this whole time.

You're the one who either can't seem to comprehend my argument, or just can't fathom the idea that someone disagrees with you and for some reason that hurts your feelings/ makes you upset. /shrug

Either way, I agree with you on the bolded. Have a good one.

[jackofwind]

Like this. I can agree with that. However, they didn't remove them. The dungeons have an integral part for the franchise, even in BotW and TotK considering the narrative directs you to them as a pretty major part of the story. Replacing the dungeon with overworld content wouldn't change the purpose of said content. I honestly don't know why you're so hung up on them being called "dungeons." It's the place they hold in the story, as a center of activity, a focal point that is full of puzzles, bosses, items, etc... that also drive the narrative forward that make them important. If that content were in the overworld instead, it would be the same thing. But I guess because it wouldn't be called a "dungeon" means that's OK?

For what it's worth I strongly believe that most open world games suffer from an immense amount of bloat, which largely comes from them building giant worlds but not actually having interesting stuff to put in them. I personally think that BotW suffered from that. I look forward to the pendulum swinging away from everything needing to be open world.

I think it's pretty clear that the new format of open world Zelda game is light on dungeons in their traditional sense. As to the semantics of "if dungeons are just put seamlessly into the open world are they really dungeons", that's just an argument for silly people with too much time on their hands. It's also beside the point, becuase even if true, it still isn't how they're currently implemented.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. BotW took from a bunch of other games and made a decently polished zelda game. Perhaps you could say it was revolutionary as it brought a game of its fidelity to a handheld console. Only to be rivaled by the steam deck, which is the only other handheld/portable console with competitive adoption. You could also make the case it was revolutionary to the Zelda series.

It was certainly revolutionary to the Zelda series since it was such a deviation to the traditional format, but I agree that it didn't actually present anything innovative in and of itself except for a well-constructed physics engine that allows for a lot of interplay between abilities. Nothing in BotW was anything that I hadn't seen before in other games, it was just the first time seeing it in a Zelda game.

Which in my mind, because I wasn't impressed by BotW, begged the question - did we really need a heavily physics-based Zelda game? The game obviously performed better than it otherwise would have by using the known/beloved Zelda IP, and it didn't hurt that it was a Switch-launch title, but it still plays more like a generic survival game set in the Zelda universe than a traditional Zelda title.

In any event, people seem to love it so I'm glad they get to play something they enjoy.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand people would like to see more dungeons, and perhaps in future there will be, but they shouldn't go back to the era of lineal dungeon progression. Maybe make them optional, much like the labyrinths are now, with great rewards.

I agree that people seem to really enjoy this new style of Zelda game, but I would point out that the older Zelda format is pretty similar to a Metroidvania style game in terms of unlocking areas, key item collection from (a variety of interesting) bosses, and doubling back after getting new items to unlock more areas. You can't really do that with wholly optional bosses and key items.

Moving away from that in Zelda is totally fine, but that doesn't mean that that format of game is bad or has no place in modern game design. Linear games may not be in high fashion right now but they're not inherently inferior simply by being linear. I would be quite surprised if the Zelda franchise didn't return to the traditional format at some point.

[Northern Goblin]

The trouble with it isn't that it's bad, far from, but it's been done to death with the Zelda franchise.

They've managed to retain the "go back to areas once you gain x" without needing to lock everything behind a fixed sequence of dungeons. In this game I've found with more stamina and zonai charge I'm revisiting areas and finding new spots, or reaching new locations.

[jackofwind]

The trouble with it isn't that it's bad, far from, but it's been done to death with the Zelda franchise.

They've managed to retain the "go back to areas once you gain x" without needing to lock everything behind a fixed sequence of dungeons. In this game I've found with more stamina and zonai charge I'm revisiting areas and finding new spots, or reaching new locations.

Sure, but is "more stamina" and "more battery" really as interesting mechanic as, say, unlocking something tangible that interacts with things you've seen in the world all game like the Clawshot from SS or the Hammer from ALttP?

For me the answer is a resounding "no". Getting more stamina is no different mechanically than any of the other myriad open world exploration/survival-a-thons. It's really just not that interesting (to me). I'd way rather have gated abilities/items that are exciting to attain and that create opportunities for properly set up and curated grand reveals in the storyline.

[Northern Goblin]

Sure, but is "more stamina" and "more battery" really as interesting mechanic as, say, unlocking something tangible that interacts with things you've seen in the world all game like the Clawshot from SS or the Hammer from ALttP?

For me the answer is a resounding "no". Getting more stamina is no different mechanically than any of the other myriad open world exploration/survival-a-thons. It's really just not that interesting (to me). I'd way rather have gated abilities/items that are exciting to attain and that create opportunities for properly set up and curated grand reveals in the storyline.

I mean, also unlocking various sage abilities has also opened up areas that previously were inaccessible, same with certain pieces of armour.

The more stamina/charge just means I'm able to reach new islands, and the fun is in the content there. Sure it's not as fun as swinging my way there on a giant claw arm or yeeting myself via hookshot, but there's also more on the other end than a chest with a piece of heart in it.

[Darththeo]

Sure, but is "more stamina" and "more battery" really as interesting mechanic as, say, unlocking something tangible that interacts with things you've seen in the world all game like the Clawshot from SS or the Hammer from ALttP?

For me the answer is a resounding "no". Getting more stamina is no different mechanically than any of the other myriad open world exploration/survival-a-thons. It's really just not that interesting (to me). I'd way rather have gated abilities/items that are exciting to attain and that create opportunities for properly set up and curated grand reveals in the storyline.

Because stamina and battery aren't comparable to the clawshot or hammer ... like they aren't remotely the same thing.

Stamina is like well the Stamina or Magic Meter in prior games and Battery is the same idea there too.

The comparable thing to the clawshot or hammer were the runes like Magnesis in BotW or the Ascend in TofK. The only functional difference between the runes and prior games is that you get all the tools you need early in the game. If your complaint was "I don't like how we get the majority of tools at the start of the game, I like to have them spread out so each is given more time to shine." I can understand that, but this current version of your complaint is you comparing two things that aren't comparable mechanics.

Your comparison is an unfair comparison because you aren't comparing like to like. Shrines for example are akin to Pieces of Heart in prior games, comparing them to any other aspect of the the prior games is an inherently unfair comparison against them.

[loras]

TotK has me feeling like Doofenschmirz or whatever the inventor from Phineas and Ferb was called.

"Here is my fire-inator 3000, with the flick of a button it will fry a Hinox in ten seconds flat!"

*Hits it with weapon of which i forgot it has a cannon attached*

Curse you Perry the forgettipus!

[Rennadrel]

Are there a finite number of batteries that you can get from the device dispensers? Because it's annoying trying to get somewhere and finding out that I need to grind more battery capacity to do it because I can't find anymore batteries that can be added from inventory.