The Lesson Nintendo Needs to Learn ► Story Over Gameplay

This is absolutely my villain arc…

You really need to understand that Nintendo does not care about the story. Never has, never will. It's always been an afterthought for them, and it has worked really well for them thus far.

THANK YOU. The intro to TOTK had me thinking we would get that story element that BOTW lacked and get the perfect balance :/. And also the MUSIC in the new games has been so lacking i can barely name any songs that stand out. We need the creativity that would prevent you from having a game with “SECRET STONES” I mean come on they aren’t even trying. The sage’s didnt even have faces, they showed the same cutscene every dungeon I mean COME ON

I watched this three times in a row, it was that profound. I'm so glad to hear my own thoughts that I didn't want to admit I had be so thoroughly articulated. To have you so thoroughly use Nintendo's own history and quotes against their defense of ToTK's lack of storytelling is so damning. They literally have no excuse for it when bold writers in the past took Link off the beaten path and it expended their not-yet-that-complex lore in a way that was unplanned, and it ended up being a fan favorite.

The thing is, I have no problem with the direction that Nintendo wanted to take with BoTW. Its placement doesn't align perfectly with one of the three established timeline branches? Well, maybe they converged at one point. Yeah, that's an interesting concept I can get behind. There was advanced technology thousands of years before the present day, but still more recent than the games that preceded it? That's a little harder to swallow, but I'll buy into it if we get some interesting lore to go along with it. Oh wait, now there's AN EVEN MORE ANCIENT civilization predating the ancient Shiekah, and whose in-game story doesn't quite align with the established environmental storytelling of its direct predecessor? This is where Nintendo begins to lose me. Whatever mysteries set up were either not expanded upon or are given an explanation that's either contradictory or lazy. In their first mention in BoTW, the Zonai are made out to be this ancient civilization that were proficient in magic use, but were was also savage and warlike. However, ToTK shows them to be a peaceful, intelligent, technologically advanced, new race of people that even at that point were already near-extinct. Their introduction is also the end of their story. The same goes for the already established races with the regional phenomena quest. They have these added significant historical locations that never came up before, and while they are subjectively cool, the fact that we had no priming to appreciate them more before we literally begin that sage's quest makes them little more than set dressing.

One of my favorite Zelda pet theories is the pendants of virtue that you collect in ALttP in order to obtain the Master Sword are refashioned from the sacred stones in OoT. Maybe it might be confirmed by this point? I don't know. And if given the choice, I would much prefer this sort of storytelling, where events or things are implied, but not outright stated versus getting direct answers. Especially since Nintendo's own explanations are half-assed or way less interesting than the established build-up was (looking at you, Eighth Heroine and what happened to the Sheikah tech). At least this way, all the way more rich and fascinating theories done by the Zelda fan community aren't rendered completely worthless.

This is all to say that ToTK is a good game. Just not a good ZELDA game.

Story gives us a narrative reason to follow Link's journey to save Zelda. In TotK, he literally did not react after Zelda turned into a dragon. How's the player supposed to care if the story doesn't have characters react? And the npc stories didn't seemed to be connected to the horrible stuff happening in their lands. I could go on but thanks for actually saying what so many fans don't. We need to stop giving each new entry perfect 10s and actually engage with the whole game.

Well, I mean both are important. It especially depends on what genre. In an rpg, I'd like better story but in something like a platformer, I prefer gameplay. Though either way there does need to be a good blend of both.

Also what you said about Zelda going back in time instead of us. They couldve made so much better content had they scarpped the depths and sky islands and let us go back and explore the past hyrule. And they couldve explained so much about what we had been speculating for BoTW. They mightve even been able to make something even better than the caves depths and sky altogether. Plus it was so far in the past they couldve changed Hyrules map up maybe showing how the current map had come to form.

Zelda has never had particularly strong story, that's revisionist history. Totk is not highest point plot-wise but not it's lowest. BOTW was closer to it's lowest, which, all of a sudden has a good story now. Again, revisionist history.

As a big fan of Breath of the Wild i can safely say…

TotK is a shameless cashgrab

Its simultaneously funny and tragic that totk goes out of its way to disregard the old timeline, free to tell whatever story they can possibly tell. And end up making what is possibly the worst story in the series 🫠

I mostly agree with you, I do think gameplay is important (because if a game is frustrating to play you'll just look up the ending to the story online). I can enjoy a game with great gameplay and a lacking story with some complaints but if a game sucks to play then I wouldn't. However, story is also important too, story elevates a game, and a truly great game needs a good story.

Nintendo's aversion towards good storytelling does hold it back. When people say "There was never meant to be a timeline, it was fans bothering Nintendo for one." I say they're flat out wrong, there is clearly an intend order. Adventure of Link was a sequel to Legend of Zelda, Link to the Past was a prequel to those, Link's Awakening was a sequel to that, Ocarina of Time was a prequel to them all with Majora's Mask being a direct sequel and Wind Waker being a branched sequel while Twilight Princess was definitely made as a sequel to Majora's Mask. The Oracle games were made to squeeze between Link to the Past and Link's Awakening (but retconned to be a Link's Awakening sequel) and even between those games given how certain crossover side quests goes it hints that Seasons comes before Ages. So that's 10 games with a definite order that requires very little interpretation. The next part is where they kinda dropped the ball a bit; Minish Cap was written to be a prequel to all of them, with Four Swords being a sequel to that, so we've accounted for 12/13 first games of the series definitely having a clear order. Nintendo's official placement for Four Swords Adventures makes absolutely no sense if you played the game, how they made that a distant sequel to Twilight Princess makes no sense, this is the first game that should be moved from its official placement. Then the sequels to Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks came out, so 14/15 are good and Skyward Sword was deemed the origin story, so coming first ahead of Minish Cap. So the first 15/16 games had clear intentions of where they came in the timeline. Link Between Worlds and Triforce Heroes came out as distant sequels to Link to the Past but Hyrule isn't in ruin, so we can place these before Legend of Zelda/Adventure of Link but after the Oracle/Awakening games. So we got 17/18 games with a clear and distinct order. (btw, the 1 game that's off, you can easily slide it in right after Four Swords and its placement is rectified, there's a really good video about it on YouTube, and it also offers a better place for the downfall timeline split too, the other big bone of contention)

So this is why I hate it when people say "There was never supposed to be a timeline", play the games, read developer interviews at the time, there was. Now, maybe each game can't hold hints to previous or future games but that's what should be explained away by "them being legends", the actual details being slightly off. Which they've used that as an excuse too. Them being "too constrained" by following a timeline they clearly thought up is a BS excuse to be lazy. I thought them not committing to a timeline with Breath of the Wild was stupid; it fits best in the child timeline. Should've just had the balls to stick with the lore they built up. However, because they didn't then that shaped the way the story had to be in Tears of the Kingdom, so the decision to not commit to a timeline is the reason why Tears of the Kingdom's story is so flawed. That being said I still enjoyed the game, but acknowledge its massive flaws

Nintendo FMV Game is what i want

Great video! And this is going to sound crazy, but I’m pretty sure that I had Prof. Boland in school too!! Did you go to a university whose name begins with R?

As a new botw player (last zelda i played before this was snes link to the past) i loved the open world but the rewards for most side quests and even shrines were terrible. I heard someone say they had to, to keep it realistic…ie a traveler prob wouldnt have access to really cool weapons or gear so they give u rupees. To which my first thought was, who cares? Since when has the vast majority of this story or world ever made sense? Same with durability. I like the idea but allow the higher grade gear last a bit longer

I'm just a humble pleb, but please consider that there are people such as myself, who don't come to these games more for story than gameplay. I agree that the story isn't mind blowing, but it wasn't trying to be as far as I can tell. Also, fetch quests don't mean story is important, it just pads time as you struggle to connect dog food to a chain chomp

Ocarina's of Time momentum was completely and unambiguously dead at Skyward Sword. BOTW and TOTK was necessary to revive what was according to the fans a stale game play loop. Just because what came after was not tailor made to you and like minded people is not a reason to go on a unwarranted tirade.

Also these are games, hear that… Games, not novels, not comic books, not graphic novels and certainly not cinema. The triple AAA market is over saturated with profound not fun slop like Alan Wake II. Even though I am not completely in love with the BOTW / TOTK formula I am aware that it is important to have games like this in the market. It pays to be mature enough to recognize that fact and move on with the thousands of games and franchises that satiate your particular thirst.

Did you just try to position yourself as some sort of authority figure to Fujibayashi-San? He only answers to big sales numbers and Nintendo top brass not former film students who deign themselves higher than him without the accomplishments to back it up. You can critique yes, in fact as a consumer you have the right, but don't place yourself higher than those who have done the task successfully.

Would you take this arrogant stance against Neil Druckman who literally ignores his character's nature in order to force a much maligned story in The Last of US Part II? I doubt it, you would put a little respect on you critique for him. I swear for some reason which I am not going to go into detail here everyone thinks they can casually crap on Nintendo's work but other companies they can hold their tongue. Weird.

Also another point: link's Awakening is a dream. Koizumi put himself in a position where he had no constraints at all as he could do anything he wanted and it would fit, why? Because it was just a dream.

I'm someone who agrees with your assessment about Tears, but I'm also someone who DOES prioritize gameplay over story. That doesn't mean that i dont want a good story. It just means I'd rather have a great game with a mediocre story like Bayonetta than a great story told through mediocre gameplay like Last of Us. I love games that can specifically do both in simultaneously by telling their story THROUGH gameplay. Bloodborne, Cocoon, Limbo, Majora, these are all games that do this flawlessly and made me invest in their worlds in ways only games can. It seems Link's Awakening did that for you as well. You mentioned no one goes back to Ocarina for the gameplay, they go for the story. I somwhat agree. I think the story was pretty good but the gameplay IS likely what made that game such a massive success at the time. That exploration, that (for the time) exceptional combat and traversal were what made that game wonderful. What made it and Majora live on IS the marvelous story told through the gameplay. The text on the surface of Ganondorf taking over, the Deku Tree dying, Sheik's reveal, saving the world are all decent, but its in experiencing this world in its pure form only to then be thrust into this nightmare version as a grown Link and the subtext that provides for the experience of growing up plus the spiritual and religious parallels under the surface are what make it and Majora the masterpieces they are. So regardless of why their great, I agree with you that they and Awakening are richer than Tears. Because while i prefer gameplay and DID enjoy Tears for the first few hours, the gameplay lost its magic as the story did for me as well. You've went into detail about this story's lack of care and the world feeling lesser than Breath. Thats what hurts the most. I will forever love the gameplay AND story of Breath because i got to experience it in the order i found it and got to invest in the worldbuilding they meticulously laid out. It was beautiful and i walked away full of wonder. I walked away from Tears hurt. The sky islands and depths grow stale once you see the gimmick and repetitive nature of each. The characters youve invested in dont remember you. And the world moving on did so in lazy and unrealistic ways. Youve pointed all that out. But the one spark of joy that still rings true was finding that Zelda lived in my house implicating that it was ours. Even moreso, finding her hidden room below where she left you your hair-tie. It's beautiful storytelling…through gameplay. I wish the developers had kept that level of magic and care throughout the rest of the worldbuilding.
I realize this is a lot, but i hope you see that while you're a story person and im a gameplay person, we share love for the good ones because they do both. And we share distain for the bad ones because they did neither.