‘Breath of the Wild’ not worthy of being called ‘Zelder Scrolls’

By ARIA DIMEZZO
In a manner reminiscent of pre-release “Wind Waker” as “Celda” because of its cel shaded graphics, “Breath of the Wild” was dismissively called “Zelder Scrolls” due to its apparent borrowing of heavy gameplay elements from The Elder Scrolls series. Post release, “Wind Waker” was exonerated, and this is similarly true of “Breath of the Wild”; it certainly didn’t borrow much from Elder Scrolls. Whereas “Wind Waker” proved to be a phenomenal game, “Breath of the Wild” isn’t worthy of being called “Zelder Scrolls,” because many elements were not included and are conspicuously absent.

“Breath of the Wild”’s most glaring problem is that it badly needed meaningful progression beyond heart containers and stamina meters, but the acquisition of these comprises the vast majority of the gameplay. Touted as inspired by the original “Legend of Zelda,” “BOTW” boasts an open world that players can explore at their leisure, which is perfectly true. However, it is equally true that there is nothing worth finding anywhere in this wasteland ruled by Calamity Ganon. Gone is the exploration of nooks and crannies that may lead to a heart container, a confused bat that increases magic power, bomb and arrow upgrades, or even simple heart container pieces. There is no reward to be found anywhere outside of the shrines that dot the landscape with mundane regularity, while completing four of these is the only way to gain a new heart container or stamina bar. 

In Elder Scrolls games, one has no idea what can be found by randomly exploring an area that happens to look interesting. Indeed, this is how much of players’ time is spent with TES games. “The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess” attempted something similar by putting an absurd number of dig caverns throughout Hyrule, but, as is the case again with “BOTW,” there is nothing whatsoever of interest to be found in the tunnels. Nintendo did not abolish the formula with “BOTW”; they merely altered it.

The original “Zelda” was created with knowledge that Nintendo would do well to remember: there are ways to direct players without an abundance of broken bridges and without requiring plot coupons. Difficulty curves and severe differences in enemy strength directed players in the loosest of ways to completing the dungeons in the correct order. Players could still explore to the graveyard without having completed a single dungeon, and would find enemies that would kill Link in one hit — a subtle but poignant way of informing the player that they shouldn’t be there yet. 

There are no difficulty changes in “Breath of the Wild,” which could have easily been solved by borrowing from TES, or even by borrowing from the Zelda franchise’s own second game: experience and leveling. “BOTW” is confused: it punishes players for engaging in combat by breaking their weapons and causing them to consume potions and items that are tedious to replenish in large quantities. This sort of misdirection about what the player should want has been a common thread in recent Zelda games; in the absence of any sort of reward for slaying enemies, the most efficient way of exploring this instance of Hyrule is to flee from everything and avoid combat. These are actions unworthy of a legendary hero.

In the modern era of hand-holding, an open world creates an issue for gamers who may not know what to do and can’t be bothered to explore (an act that wouldn’t be worth their time anyway), and Nintendo worked around this, instead of railroading the player in one direction, by having NPCs every four feet interrupt exploration to tell the player where a plot coupon can be found. The lack of motivation to explore, in a game about exploring, is not something that should be discounted simply because it has the word “Zelda” in the title. “Breath of the Wild” desperately needed some sort of reward for playing and doing things beyond the tedious shrines and the paltry spirit orbs. The result is a Zelda game that offers no reason to play it beyond its venerable title.

Score: 6/10