Question Of The Week [May 13th 2024]

I saw this argument a lot over the course of Christmas 2023, when talking about Game Of The Year. There was a huge backlash over Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom because it didn’t “Innovate” and was just “More of the same”. Which I think is exactly what a good sequel should do. It should be familiar, and take what worked well with the first, but then add upon that, and change some but not all of the other things around it. Tears of the Kingdom or “TOTK” for short was a great game. It took the newly existing formula for “New Zelda” gameplay and improved on it. Which is exactly what Innovation is. Altering, making new out of something pre established. So yes, Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom does innovate, just not in the way most people wanted apparently.

I personally thought Tears of the Kingdom was a phenomenal game. The sky islands and underground  cave system, the new towers, and the powers allowing lots of creativity really expanded the land of Hyrule. The story with time traveling Princess Zelda and new enemies and traversal with minecarts and hovercrafts and gliders just made it so much more than the Breath Of The Wild. It brought a lot of new sandbox type of thinking and imagination to the game itself, that wasn’t there in previous Zeldas, or even Breath Of The Wild. Seeing stacks of lumber on the side of the road allowed me to be able to pick up pieces and create little huts or forts to hunker down in and battle. Or create a carriage for my horse to pull. Creating jetpacks and launchers to propel koroks to their traveling buddy across great distances was just some of the many ways to tackle the hundreds or thousands of puzzles in the game.

Tears Of The Kingdom did take place in Hyrule from the previous game, and yes it was nearly identical in certain parts. But just because that second game in the new version of Zelda is similar, doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. It’s like throwing a fit because Majora’s Mask has the same formula as Ocarina of Time. Or Skyward Sword, or Twilight Princess or WindWaker. Heck, why is Link To The Past the same formula as A Link Between Worlds? The formula is what grew stale, but not after the second game. That is what makes it a formula in the first place. It can’t be a formula until it gets repeated. So just because Tears of the Kingdom repeats the same basic steps to create a familiar game (which is what a sequel should do), doesn’t mean it doesn’t innovate. The powers and the new additions and islands, characters and items all expand the game in a way that it really does solidify the new formula going forward.

I do believe there is more to the argument than that. But I think the question itself is “Is a game good if it’s more of the same?” instead of “Does a game need to innovate to be good”. More of the same isn’t inherently bad, but it does need to change stuff up more than the basic premise. Additions to gameplay such as the UltraHand in Tears of the Kingdom really do blow the lid off how the players tackle the game's various and many puzzles. Make a boat or raft. Climb a mountain and make a glider, Teleport to a tower and fall with style. Create a battery powered car or hovercraft. Launch yourself off a rocket, or create a Rube Goldberg machine to catapult yourself over to where you need to go. Weld metal together to make a gondola and gently slide down a cliff. All of these things are there as innovation and create something new in a pre established setting.