• caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Uh
    The one that defined the franchise? Isn’t true to the franchise? It literally was the franchise in its time.
    It’s the originator. It’s the roots in “get back to our roots”. Talking nonsense about “departures” is pretty dumb when the direction in which it departs is towards the first game in the series. That’s not a departure, that’s a return.

    • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      So the latest Prince of Persia isn’t a departure from the usual formula because the Apple II PoP was a sidescroller?

    • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Zelda 1 started the franchise, but it doesn’t define it. Ask anyone the most definitive Zelda game, and most people will tell you Zelda 3: A Link to the Past, or Ocarina of Time (which I think is Zelda 4 but I am not sure 100%).

      Notably, every mainline Zelda game after 3 followed a definitive formula that 3 started, which BotW and TotK ditched. TotK kinda tried to bring back some of the formula, and thats why I say TotK is far better than BotW, but it still wasn’t what most would expect from Zelda.