They made the best commentary about Zelda that I've read (Destiny)

by kidtsunami , Atlanta, GA, Thursday, April 04, 2019, 06:47 (1848 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

I’m interested in opinions as well. But when people can’t or won’t distinguish between their own opinions and facts, that tells me something about their thinking. Specifically, they are usually haven’t thought things through properly. Or better said, they CAN’T think things through clearly, because they can’t tell the difference between their own opinions and facts.

Is it really that hard? Here's how to tell if something is someone's opinion:

Is it a referential statement to an event that actually occurred? Is it in quotation marks? If the answer to both is no, it's their opinion. As far as I could tell, there were few facts at all in Saving Zelda save for release dates and things like that.

Late in the original Zelda’s second quest, I got stuck.

Fact.

That is what I’m claiming: that modern Zeldas are broken at their core.

Opinion.

Why is this only clear to me?

Yeah I was going to ask, where did we get confused about stated fact vs opinion? It sounds like they make some hardcore value judgements, but ultimately they're stated as opinion and not as a fact. You just think they have a bad opinion, and that's like your opinion man.

I have no problem with his opinions. But if you’re going to call an article “Saving Zelda”, shouldn’t you at least justify the claim that Zelda needs saving? As far as the writer is concerned, Zelda needs saving because he doesn’t like it anymore, and his opinion is all that matters. If that isn’t a sign of self-absorbed thinking, I don’t know what is.

If you didn't feel like Zelda needed to be saved, that's all well and good. When I read the article back when it was published, I felt like Zelda should be saved and so I didn't really balk at the assertion. As they laid out what they felt was missing from Zelda, it clarified a vague dissatisfaction I had with where the Zelda games had gone. Reading through it again, they make a case for why Zelda needs to be saved, an opinionated case, but a case nonetheless. Not sure why the title would have to be changed, especially since it's a fun double entendre.

And reflecting on it now, after BOTW came out, I think they're even more right than I thought they were back then.

The promise being: a world, vast, spread out before you, ripe for exploration, free. But when was the last time Zelda truly offered this? When the game plopped you in an open field and said: here is a world – have at it.

I strongly doubt this is actually true, but I feel like BOTW was a response to this article...