Over the several years that Nintendo spent marketing The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, it never felt particularly clear just how the game differed from Breath of the Wild. Eventually we were made privy to a few tidbits about how mechanics worked, but there was still so much hidden from us, namely what the story even would be. Once the game finally made it into everyone’s hands, it quickly became clear how different it was from its predecessor. Weirdly though, it didn’t feel different in the typical way a sequel might.
Some fans of the first game found frustration in the fact that the game doesn’t wholly acknowledge the events of Breath of the Wild, to the point theories formed around what happened to the Divine Beasts and all of the old ancient Sheikah technology, though the answer was it ultimately disappeared for… some reason. In one way it’s a bit of a cop out answer, sure, but if we’re being honest the lack of direct discussion over the events of Breath of the Wild was simply to make it easier for new players to get into.
Personally, I never had much issue with this admittedly odd narrative choice, mostly because of the small nods you can find to Breath of the Wild, and the way that it connects to Tears of the Kingdom in interesting ways (ways that are maybe a bit too lore-heavy to get in to). But for me, it made Tears of the Kingdom not really feel like a sequel. For a while, I’ve been trying to figure out what it does feel like to me. Maybe a do-over? Another chance to really offer a unique Hyrule to play around in? Hmm, no, that’s not quite it. Maybe, as my partner theorises, it’s a retelling of Ocarina of Time – some of those plot beats really do line up with the classic N64 game, and I’m not opposed to that idea, but that didn’t feel like the solution to my personal conundrum.
About Author
