I think that depends on what you think of as a Zelda game. I think it’s not very similar to a link to the past; however I think it expands on much of what made ocarina of time a successful game, while still innovating.
I’d really love to hear in what way you think BotW is remotely similar to OOT, because I cannot think of a way you could make a game more dissimilar to Ocarina of Time while still trying to justify it being a Legend of Zelda game.
I’m talking about gameplay and not story? I don’t know how you can look at game that got big because it was flashy, a big upgrade, good “AI”, in a large open world metroidvania, and say that is nothing like BotW.
Like yeah, BotW added more shit cuz… duh? Just like OoT added more to the game compared to previous Zelda games because 3D.
Please elaborate. Neither the gameplay nor story of OOT are remotely similar to BOTW.
flashy, a big upgrade, good “AI”, in a large open world metroidvania
The only thing from your list that really has anything to do with the core elements of OOT is something that BOTW absolutely does not share. It simply is not a metroidvania or in any way similar to one.
What is a metroidvania then? I always thought it was any action/platformer game that was gated by equipment or whatever (can’t get to this location until you have the special item). That’s exactly what BOTW is?
There is no equipment gating in BOTW unless you’re only counting the tutorial plateau?
You get your bread and butter abilities at the very start and then you get nothing else the entire rest of the game except completely optional sage abilities and elemental arrows in stores I guess? The only thing that gates story progression is the area quests.
Maybe I’m just thinking of TotK which definitely was, thought you gained upgrades to the skills and stuff as you went to the mechs but it’s been ages and TotK is fresher in my mind. So idk.
OOT had enemies with AI that seemed impressive at the time, it was the first 3D Zelda game, and graphics were impressive at the time so flashy & a big upgrade for sure. Also, definitely a large open world for the time, even if it was cheated with past/future being able to reuse some map, it worked for making it seem large, and you were free to go in whatever order and such.
As I responded to your other post, I may have misremembered BotW being more metroidvania due to TotK.
It did have those things, yes, but they really aren’t core elements of the game. By that logic Ocarina of Time is like F.E.A.R. Because it had impressive AI and graphics and it was 3D.
And Ocarina of Time really isn’t an open world game, not in the modern sense that Breath of the Wild definitely is. It’s a mostly linear level-based game with a big hub.
I think that depends on what you think of as a Zelda game. I think it’s not very similar to a link to the past; however I think it expands on much of what made ocarina of time a successful game, while still innovating.
IMO it’s most similar to TLoZ
I’d really love to hear in what way you think BotW is remotely similar to OOT, because I cannot think of a way you could make a game more dissimilar to Ocarina of Time while still trying to justify it being a Legend of Zelda game.
I’m talking about gameplay and not story? I don’t know how you can look at game that got big because it was flashy, a big upgrade, good “AI”, in a large open world metroidvania, and say that is nothing like BotW.
Like yeah, BotW added more shit cuz… duh? Just like OoT added more to the game compared to previous Zelda games because 3D.
Please elaborate. Neither the gameplay nor story of OOT are remotely similar to BOTW.
The only thing from your list that really has anything to do with the core elements of OOT is something that BOTW absolutely does not share. It simply is not a metroidvania or in any way similar to one.
What is a metroidvania then? I always thought it was any action/platformer game that was gated by equipment or whatever (can’t get to this location until you have the special item). That’s exactly what BOTW is?
There is no equipment gating in BOTW unless you’re only counting the tutorial plateau?
You get your bread and butter abilities at the very start and then you get nothing else the entire rest of the game except completely optional sage abilities and elemental arrows in stores I guess? The only thing that gates story progression is the area quests.
Maybe I’m just thinking of TotK which definitely was, thought you gained upgrades to the skills and stuff as you went to the mechs but it’s been ages and TotK is fresher in my mind. So idk.
OOT had enemies with AI that seemed impressive at the time, it was the first 3D Zelda game, and graphics were impressive at the time so flashy & a big upgrade for sure. Also, definitely a large open world for the time, even if it was cheated with past/future being able to reuse some map, it worked for making it seem large, and you were free to go in whatever order and such.
As I responded to your other post, I may have misremembered BotW being more metroidvania due to TotK.
It did have those things, yes, but they really aren’t core elements of the game. By that logic Ocarina of Time is like F.E.A.R. Because it had impressive AI and graphics and it was 3D.
And Ocarina of Time really isn’t an open world game, not in the modern sense that Breath of the Wild definitely is. It’s a mostly linear level-based game with a big hub.