Fiddlesticks's The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild review

Your review makes it sound like your concerns with the narrative aren't addressed within the game, but they are with exemplary efficiency. So here's a spoiler warning and a summary of the salient plot points, in case you or anyone else finds it helpful.

As the game opens, Link awakens from a 100-years slumber in a regenerative pool in a remote cave known as the Shrine of Resurrection. He has no real memory of what brought him to that point, but soon learns Ganon and Zelda are locked in a battle at Hyrule Castle that has been waging since Link was defeated decades ago and carried to his resting place. The fact that this intense struggle has been going on for literally generations is the only reason Hyrule isn't in far worse shape, and yet the battle can't continue indefinitely. The expectation is that eventually Ganon will persevere and the freedom that wins him will spell the end for everyone. At the moment, Ganon is otherwise occupied and at his most vulnerable. But he's still not nearly vulnerable enough. With the four heroes defeated during the same battle that felled Link, there's literally nothing any other individual or army is equipped to do about the situation until Link powers up significantly. Faced with that potentially hopeless situation, the common people of Hyrule do the only thing that makes sense: they live their lives, despite the figurative--and if they're close enough, literal--cloud hanging over their heads for a period of multiple generations. When Link revives, he COULD go right to Gannon, where the virtually guaranteed outcome is that he will lose (he doesn't even have the Master Sword, which is usually an ingredient for success, though it wasn't enough to save him in the previous duel)... or he could take advantage of Zelda's continuing struggle and use the relative leisure it provides to explore the world and power up (chiefly by meeting with spirits at a slew of shrines, but also by meeting with the spirits of the four slain guardians, who have gone on the rampage because of Ganon's corruption) so he can finally defeat Ganon. Since Link is not the world's biggest moron (except maybe when he's being controlled by daring speed runners), he goes with the sensible latter option.

All of this is addressed in-game, without requiring players to look to outside context such as an instruction manual or some random online forum. This plot facilitates Breath of the Wild's ability to be the beautiful, liberating experience it is, while remaining true to the spirit of Zelda. I have a devil of a time faulting it.

I'm sorry we don't agree on the merit of the game's main quest. Breath of the Wild is pretty awesome, as evidenced by the rating I gave it. If you want me to give it a higher score and not point out the issues I had with the game, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know why, but I can just picture Jason sitting bolt upright in the middle of a family meal and yelling "Someone's badmouthing Nintendo!" before running towards the nearest computer.

If you want me to give it a higher score and not point out the issues I had with the game, I don't know what to tell you.

I want neither of those things because: 1) the score you awarded the game seems to match your honest impressions; 2) it would be absurd to argue that reviews shouldn't point out issues within the games they critique.

My goal isn't to quash subjectivity, which I view as the lifeblood of critical analysis. Your review makes a pretty big deal out of the notion that the game doesn't address a key point when it memorably does address that point on multiple occasions. Because of how the game's plot is structured and key points are revealed, though, I wasn't certain you experienced some of the relevant content. I was more than 100 hours into my own adventure before I did, as I recall.

I typed my post up on a lunch break and that meant I was in too much of a hurry as I tried to point out some of the pieces you might have missed and how they fit together. I probably should have done so later, and privately rather than in public. That way, you could have decided whether you wanted to take any of that information on board without the whole affair feeling like a confrontation.

I apologize both for my lack of tact, and for not mentioning something that was also on my mind at the time I composed my post: though I disagree with parts of it, there's a lot about your review that I think is very good indeed. Thank you for sharing it, and I'm sorry for any behavior of mine that in this case soured what I earnestly hope is usually a positive experience.

I can see what you mean about the lack of mythology in a game rife with it. There are a couple of journals, but BotW is exceedingly light in the reading department. I'll give you that, and while you may not have enjoyed the cutscenes, I'll also agree I wanted to see more of the characters, and not just Zelda.

I'll agree with Jason, though, that using a short story style presentation, they gave the player all the necessary information to play and didn't overwhelm them. That is a fine are in and of itself that most developers fail to achieve. Half Life 2 was a seminal experience for me in that regard, and it is a rare event to see it pulled off so seamlessly.

Nintendo had one purpose with BotW, though they probably didn't realize that until late in development: Prop up the Switch. It was the system seller it needed to be, and accessible to larger audience than the franchise has enjoyed in decades. The last time I enjoyed a LoZ game was Wind Waker, and... no, I won't be punning there.

The point is that it may not have satisfied everyone, it did what it needed to, and now Nintendo has the chance to give us the game they want to, instead of figuring out how to save their gaming platform. I'm glad you have nitpicks with BotW, it means the franchise has expansion room.

Let's just hope it doesn't take them ten years to produce the next one.

Honestgamer, thanks for the follow-up and apology, though it's not necessary as long as I know you're not trying to give me a hard time for having a different experience with a game you really like. Let's talk about Breath of the Wild. And of course, spoilers will abound.

So, I don't really have an issue with the plot premise. I think it's endearing and appropriate that such a complex game employ a simple set-up. I don't want a convoluted storyline for a Zelda title either, and I don't require it to make explicit all its lore. I love Dark Souls 3 because how well it builds its world and invites me to learn more about it through its secrets and minor touches. BotW's lore wasn't quite as interesting for me.

I would like Calamity Ganon, or his agents, and the supporting army of darkness to be given a task. I get King Rhoam's introduction and all the various memories and monologues that characters such as Impa and the champions and their live counterparts employ. But ultimately, I began to get pretty tired of hearing people introducing themselves to Link as so-and-so from a hundred years ago, or "hey, you have a Sheikah Slate, you must be important." The game's writing just didn't enthuse me. I thought that the voice acting was terrible.

I also feel there was a missed opportunity in how the Divine Beasts were utilized. Outside of the salamander on Death Mountain who occasionally rains lava balls on Link as he's traveling around Goron City, I didn't think they posed much of a threat despite the locals claiming contrary.

I'm not even sure how the bird was a danger, as it just seemed to fly lackadaisically over Rito Village. Did I miss some piece of monologue from a character explaining why this is a problem? Probably, because that was the last Divine Beast I attempted and at that point in the game I was pressing through the text as quickly as possible to get to something more interesting.

As for the other beasts, I thought their abilities to commit problems was sorely under-utilized. The camel was far off in the desert and only conjured lightning strikes if Link ventured near, and the elephant with its threat of bursting the dam that would flood out the Zora seemed genuine until, from my assessment of the in-game situation, came to realize that it didn’t matter how long I took in boarding it because this game isn’t on a time limit.

That’s really my biggest issue with the game. There are so many wonderfully realized and extensive areas to explore, so many things to do, see, and collect, that they truly crowd out the real reason why Link is exploring them in the first place – to save the land and the princess.

There’s no sense of urgency. No threat that if Link doesn’t do Task X by Moment Y that it will have genuine consequences on someone or something in the context of the game. Even without employing game-changing consequences, it would have been nice for the game’s pacing to portray that more effectively than it did for me. All the enemies idly wait for Link to come to them. I suppose it’s nice knowing I can take my time in how I approach going through the game, but where’s the genuine danger if there is no real consequence for me deciding that for the next couple in-game weeks, I’m going to whip out a guide and focus on finding koroks. How can I rationalize walking away from the task of saving Zelda as having a consequence when at no point my experience proved otherwise?

Between all the things going on in my life, I will admit it takes a lot for me to be invested in a video game's story, so it better intrigue me up front. Unfortunately BotW didn't do that for me in spite of all the other wonderful things it so expertly manages to provide. It’s a great game, but I felt it could have been better.