Breath of the Wild has a ton of gall. Never have I seen a video game that is so willing to abandon the formula that carried its forebears for so long. Because of this, Nintendo was able to create a truly impressive open world, and I don't just mean in scope. This rendition of Hyrule strikes a great balance between content and empty space. The latter may seem like a weird thing to compliment, but without it, I would not have felt Hyrule's serene atmosphere. Breath of the Wild is absolutely an important game in the open world genre. Now that a direct sequel is arriving this year, known as Tears of the Kingdom, I feel it is time to look back on this title and see where Nintendo could improve going forward.

Let's start with the most obvious complaints: the dungeons, bosses, and enemy variety. I really enjoyed the Divine Beast concept and the Blight Ganon aesthetic, but having every main dungeon and boss look and function the same way was disappointing. Enemies mostly consisted of just Bokoblins, Moblins, Lizalfos, and Guardians, while mini-bosses can be boiled down to Stone Talus, Hinox, Molduga, and Lynel. These enemies all have stellar AI, but there isn't nearly enough variety to keep such encounters fresh throughout a first playthrough, let alone repeat ones.

Weapon durability is a topic that has been discussed to death, so I won't say too much here. All I will say is that it made finding weapons in chests extremely unsatisfying since I knew they would break if I used them. As such, I ended up hoarding my best weapons, preferring to wait for that one situation where I would need them, but that never happened.

As for the combat itself, it definitely earns most of its praise. The variety of ways you can fight enemies is staggering and I hope this returns in the sequel. That said, the overwhelming majority of these methods (attacking with scrap metal, launching or pushing boulders, repeatedly throwing bombs, etc.) are not as practical and efficient as charging head-first into a camp or stealth killing with archery. It would be awesome if the game rewarded you for killing enemies in different ways. I would also like to see Nintendo incorporate the hidden skills from Twilight Princess, along with the ability to swing one-handed weapons without coming to a stop every time.

Now for the shrines. These underground chambers were a lot of fun when they were fully fleshed-out. Unfortunately, that happened a lot less often that I would have liked. If I had to estimate, only one-sixth of the shrines were high quality. Too many of them are combat challenges against the same enemy, or empty "blessing" chambers. I know most of the latter were the reward for completing shrine quests, which were usually fun, but the accompanying shrines could have easily been replaced with a cutscene where Link receives the Spirit Orb in the open world. The rest of the shrines did have puzzles, but not enough of them to feel special individually. My guess is that Nintendo designed the open world first and realized they needed a ton of shrines to grab the player's attention on a regular basis, leading to a majority of them feeling unfinished. In any case, a much higher proportion of meaty shrines would be appreciated. In addition, I would also prefer Nintendo to make it so shrines do not serve as fast travel points, or at least provide the option to do so. By the midgame, shrine markers clutter the map and become extremely tempting to use, which has the knock-on effect of reducing the player's immersion. Having the Sheikah towers serve as the only fast travel points would be a suitable compromise between immersion and convenience.

Before I wrap up this review, I would like to go over a few more issues I've seen other people have that deserve more attention, those being the side quests, story, and setting for the sequel. The game's side quests definitely could have been better. I haven't played Witcher 3 as of this review, but seeing how much praise that game got for its side quests, it's definitely something Nintendo should consider going forward. I won't be upset if they aren't interesting, but it is one of those inclusions that could enhance the worldbuilding. The story could have benefited from having a greater sense of urgency. Everyone tells Link how important it is that he prepares to destroy Ganon sooner rather than later, but the world never evolves with new enemies or permanent changes in scenery to sell that urgency. Finally, I've seen a handful of people worry that the sequel taking place in the same Hyrule as Breath of the Wild will make the experience too familiar. I understand that, but I also think such expectations can work in Tears of the Kingdom's favor. If Nintendo goes above and beyond to surprise players in ways we didn't know we wanted, Hyrule will be anything but familiar.

A Link Between Worlds oozes with quality. Extremely solid dungeon design, fun bosses, and a brilliant wall-merging mechanic that re-contextualizes the familiar map of Hyrule. It's no secret that it borrows heavily from A Link to the Past and it's not always successful at that in my opinion. Compared to the SNES classic, the difficulty curve is mostly flat, almost all of the dungeons reuse themes, and the two overworld maps are practically identical. The item rental system was also less punishing than it was probably intended due to the abundance of rupees. It is for these reasons that I consider A Link to the Past the better game, but A Link Between Worlds is still great. It is paced just as well, if not slightly better than its inspiration, and its more nonlinear structure would serve as a great warm-up for fans and Nintendo as the latter prepared to overhaul the series' formula after 25 years.

Coming late to a franchise as old as Zelda is a funny thing. See, I got this game the day it came out. Back then, I was fairly new to the series, so I didn't know about the template Zelda games had been following for years. As such, I completely understand why there are such a diversity of opinions on Skyward Sword. Much like Twilight Princess, those who played this as one of their first Zelda games tend to love it. Series veterans, on the other hand, often bemoan the lack of new ideas.

While I like Skyward Sword, the veterans are not wrong in their assessment. The "new" elements of Skyward Sword are refinements of ideas from past Zeldas. The silent realms were just better Twilight sections, flying was another mode of transportation like Wind Waker's sailing, and the story hit similar beats to previous games. What's worse is that Skyward Sword failed with ideas that past entries got right. The Sky competes with Ocarina of Time's Hyrule Field for the most barren overworld in the series; the motion-based combat, while fun to me, is seen as shallow by some because directional swinging is all you do (something I cannot disagree with); Fi was a downgrade from Midna in every way for reasons everyone knows; and the game felt the need to tell you about items CONSTANTLY. I KNOW WHAT AN AMBER RELIC IS!!!

The flaws of Skyward Sword on Wii are so prevalent that I do not blame anyone for dismissing the game entirely, even with the QoL features in the HD version. Some issues, like the game's linearity, cannot be "fixed" without changing the core experience. Regardless, I still value several of its features. The aforementioned silent realms are thrilling, several of the characters are amazing, the orchestral soundtrack is good, and several of the dungeons are among the most imaginative in Zelda history.

The dungeons are actually the key to why I enjoy Skyward Sword so much. They have always been my favorite part of Zelda and were designed extremely well in Skyward Sword, but Nintendo also did something fairly unique by designing the three surface worlds like dungeons. They incorporated loads of environmental puzzles requiring a decent level of critical thinking. These types of puzzles are not new to Zelda, but previous games rarely had you solve them in areas outside of dungeons. I believe this was a great idea, as the content between dungeons in other Zelda games often came across as filler (catch a fish, talk to these NPCs, obtain these random items, etc). There was still some of that in Skyward Sword, especially later on, but for the most part, the game gave you a puzzle to solve and incrementally rewarded you with more interesting puzzles and story progress. The game kept my attention the whole way through and I would personally like to see more handcrafted challenges like these in future Zelda games.

The last thing I will address is the game's linearity. I'm not opposed to linear games. In fact, I usually prefer them over open-ended games because they often have a harder time crafting unique challenges for the player. However, Zelda was created to be about exploration and this entry did not have that, even though the Sky would have been a perfect place for it. One could argue that its linearity created a more focused adventure, but one need only look at previous 3D Zeldas to see how Skyward Sword didn't need to sacrifice its exploration. With the exception of Breath of the Wild, all of the 3D Zeldas are linear. Despite this, they felt expansive and packed a respectable amount of optional content in their worlds. Skyward Sword did have optional Skyloft quests and collectibles, but the world felt small, and that is unfortunate.

Skyward Sword is not a bad game. It's worth a playthrough if you prefer Zelda to be all about dungeons, puzzles, and epic storytelling. It satisfied me, but it won't satisfy everyone. I'm okay with that though. The series experienced an important shift in its design philosophy going forward and it wouldn't have happened if Skyward Sword wasn't so flawed. If nothing else, it is part of the series' legacy and should be remembered, warts and all.

Zelda fans seem to be in one of two camps on Twilight Princess. Some think it was a great iteration on Ocarina of Time, fixing nearly all of its flaws and adding things that weren't possible in the N64 classic. Others accuse it of playing it safe and starting the series' stagnation until Breath of the Wild's arrival. I've grappled extremely hard with both arguments over the years. You can tell from my rating that I love this game, but believe it to be flawed. I'm going to address the most significant gripes critics and fans have before getting to why I think this game is not only underrated, but one of the best Zelda games.

The biggest complaint I've seen is the two-hour tutorial. This lasts from the moment you press Start to arriving in the first dungeon. I understand this argument a lot, especially when you consider that previous Zelda games had more elegant tutorials. The key difference with Twilight Princess (and Skyward Sword) is that it has a greater focus on character development than past games. You will spend enough time with the village children that you actually feel the urge to rescue them after they are kidnapped, even the two brothers that bully Colin. Not only that, but you are transformed into a wolf against your will. Both Link and the player are unfamiliar with this new body and the surrounding Twilight, which unsettles the player as much as it intrigues. The bug hunts required to restore each section of Hyrule could have been more interesting, as evidenced by Skyward Sword's silent realms, but there is something to be said for how Twilight Princess forces you to traverse these initially unfamiliar environments in a unique way.

I've seen some people argue that Twilight Princess really doesn't get going until Midna's desperate hour. I don't agree with this because of the emotional weight threading Link's initial journey to rescue and help the village children. You rescue Colin from King Bulbllin, which is not only one of the coolest sequences in a video game, but also emotionally strong because you have a connection with Colin. This wouldn't have been nearly as effective if the game asked you to rescue him with little context. Later, you escort Ilia and the sexy bar owner Telma to Kakariko Village to save a dying Zora prince. This act, of course, allows Link to gain the Zora's trust, but it's made extra effective by how Ilia saved the Zora prince at the cost of injuries that damaged her memory, as well as the beautiful remix of Ocarina of Time's Serenade of Water when Link visits the graveyard for the Zora tunic. These moments address the reason Link set out on his adventure in the first place while slowly revealing more about the greater threat to Hyrule.

Another big issue many detractors seem to have is that Twilight Princess tries too hard to be edgy, unfavorably comparing it to Majora's Mask. The creepy cutscene in Lake Hylia definitely supports this argument. Even I think it clashed very hard with the game's overall tone, but this is basically the only instance of that happening. The game has its dark moments, but it also has plenty of light-hearted ones. If you didn't cry when the two Yetis in Snowpeak Ruins confessed their love for each other, there's definitely something wrong with you. Zelda games have always had a balance of light and dark storytelling moments. May I remind you that the cutesy Wind Waker has red-eyed zombies with paralyzing screeches?

The last notable gripe I've seen is that the game is too easy. I won't bother denying this, as it's one of the easiest Zelda games in existence. Now that I've played Dark Souls, which has a lot in common with Zelda, I can comfortably say that the combat of Twilight Princess didn't reach all of its potential. I believe it had the most interesting combat ideas in the series, but the enemies needed to be much harder and varied. I didn't mind the bosses being about spectacle, as they were still fun to fight. I especially loved the Zant fight for how each phase gradually becomes more insane, befitting of how warped and pathetic he really is. I know many didn't like that Ganondorf was in the game, but without him, Zant's character revelation would not have worked.

If you are familiar with the series and dislike Twilight Princess, this is probably the point where you will argue that most of its scenarios were attempted in some capacity in Ocarina of Time. Nobody can doubt Twilight Princess follows closely in that game's footsteps, but just how close is too close? The game's structure was unchanged, but you can see the developers made attempts to improve on the weaker elements of Ocarina. Midna is an improvement over Na'vi, horseback combat is actually fun, and minor characters in the story are given enough screen time that you actually care about them.

More than anything, Twilight Princess wants to take you on an adventure of epic proportions. Introducing cinematic elements was a logical way of accomplishing this. Was it perfect? Of course not. But even at its wobbliest, Nintendo demonstrates a level of skill that few developers have matched. It would have been so easy for the Zelda team to take advantage of the game's cinematic focus and overindulge in underdeveloped set piece gimmicks or unskippable cutscenes that take away the player's control for long stretches of time. Twilight Princess is not like that despite the aforementioned missed potential. It knows it's a game at the end of the day. The only question is whether you want to go on the journey it offers. I say you absolutely should.

At the end of the day, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is an iterative sequel. It is an oddity in a series that is always trying to surprise players. Because it was a one-off exercise, however, I do not mind that Nintendo went back to the Ocarina template. It laid the groundwork for deeper storytelling in the series and many Zelda fans would probably still be upset at the company if every game in the series was including radically different gameplay elements. Twilight Princess is a reminder to Nintendo and gamers longing for change that a straightforward sequel is okay every once in a while. As long as the power that comes with a series like Zelda is handled responsibly, whether that's with new gameplay experiments or adding onto an existing foundation, there is no reason to be worried for its future.

Right from the moment you witness Outset Island and the surrounding Great Sea, the player is filled with an urge to explore the wonders of Hyrule. Although the game doesn't realize all of that starting potential, the spirit of adventure manages to pervade the experience from beginning to end, something that even Breath of the Wild didn't manage for me. For this reason, I am confident in saying The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is the best game in the series.

The wasted potential comes from many of the islands not having much content or recycling the same base layout, such as the eye reefs. I believe these islands should have been combined, making the average island denser and reducing the issues people had with sailing. I actually enjoyed the sailing, especially for how it created anticipation when you see an interesting island off in the distance (the Great Sea theme is one of the all-time greats). I even think the Triforce hunt was a great idea on paper. I believe the real problem people have with it isn't the hunt itself, but rather how it's slapped in the player's face immediately after they restore the Master Sword. It ruins the pacing and isn't helped by the fact that most of the Triforce chart challenges are pretty lame. I've seen a handful of defenders argue that you could get several of the charts earlier. This is true, but this argument ignores how the game conditions the player to expect to be told where and what to do next. The game doesn't let go of your hand until you need to restore the Master Sword and even then, most players will spend their time figuring out how to access the required dungeons.

As for the dungeons themselves, they seem to have come under criticism lately for being overly linear. These people are correct, but I also think the atmosphere in each one makes up for it. Each dungeon's layout also matches the exterior. For example, Dragon Roost Cavern and Tower of the Gods are both highly vertical, which fits perfectly for climbing a volcano and tower, respectively. This is something many other Zelda dungeons sidestep by not showing the full exterior of the dungeon, so I appreciate how Wind Waker teases a majority of its dungeons to the player before revealing the entrance.

All in all, The Wind Waker is a special game, both as a product and a (literal) work of art. Despite a plethora of action-adventure games releasing over the past 20 years, it still stands as a shining example of how games can immerse us in faraway lands.

Of all the Zelda games I've played, none have conflicted me quite like Majora's Mask. When I first played this game, I hated it for how confusing it was. Years later, I gave it a second playthrough and I appreciated it more, but not on nearly the same level as seemingly every Zelda fan today.

Let's start with the positives. Majora's Mask has a great first half as you explore Clock Town as a Deku Scrub, retrieve the Ocarina of Time, and then lift the curses on a poisoned swamp and frigid mountain. The three transformation masks are all creative and fun to use and the dungeons are among the toughest and most satisfying to complete in all of Zelda. The citizens of Clock Town put most NPCs in the series to shame and the music, despite being different from other Zelda soundtracks, is just as well-crafted as one would hope. All of this brings together a powerful atmosphere unlike anything the series has seen.

This feeling holds up until after you clear the second temple, as Majora's Mask's pacing takes a nosedive. For one, you have to acquire Epona even though she is used for very little in the game. The process of getting her takes quite a while and the fence you're required to jump over with her looks like something Link himself could climb. Because the game doesn't hint at you needing her beforehand, I had to look up where to go. Even once I got to Great Bay, I hated having to retrieve the Zora eggs. Don't even get me started on the mandatory fetch quest at the bottom of the well, making sure you have a powder keg to enter Ikana Castle, or playing the Elegy of Emptiness dozens of times. These annoying roadblocks greatly affected my immersion while playing and I actually considered giving up during both of my playthroughs, something no other Zelda game has done.

As for the side quests, I'll admit I didn't look too deeply into them on my first playthrough. After I heard how great they apparently were online, I went out of my way on my second playthrough to see for myself. They were definitely well-written, but I didn't like how you were meant to go about clearing them. You often have to wait for a while before the next part of a side quest can play out and even if you do it correctly, you might mess up another part later and have to redo everything, like with the beloved Anju and Kafei quest. I completed that quest so I could finally check it off the list, but I have little interest in doing it again. The innovative three-day cycle, for as much as it adds to the game, ends up working against the side quests, which is what makes Majora's Mask a work of art for so many people.

I could talk about other things I didn't like, such as the bizarre save system and inconsistent time travel rules, but I'll stop here. My point in saying all of this is that Majora's Mask is too flawed for me to call it a masterpiece. I really wish I could like it as much as everyone else. It has some ideas that are worth admiring and I'll be forever grateful Nintendo didn't just make a straightforward sequel to Ocarina of Time, but the end result is a slog to play through.

The highest-rated game in history is also the hardest game to form a new opinion on. I understand why some think it's immensely overrated and why others love it. While I don't think it's the best Zelda game, let alone the greatest game ever made, I still greatly enjoyed my time with it. This is coming from someone who played the N64 version over 15 years after its release. The 3DS version is definitely superior, but seeing how fun that version was despite no changes to the game's structure, it should say a lot to how generally well-crafted Ocarina of Time is.

I don’t believe it can be overstated how influential this game was on the series. It essentially perfected 2D Zelda, adopting the best ideas from Zelda II (towns, magic meter, precise combat) and applying them to the framework of Zelda I. The pacing is really solid from beginning to end thanks to a great difficulty curve, fun items, and a near-perfect balance between player freedom and linearity. This template would be adopted by all Zelda games going forward until Breath of the Wild.

Given that mighty praise, why did I not give this game five stars? It all comes down to one thing: I prefer 3D Zelda over 2D Zelda. A Link to the Past is the best 2D Zelda game due to its lack of noticeable flaws, but it’s not one I would immediately pick up if I wanted to play a Zelda game. It’s just not as immersive as the 3D games even though it made excellent use of the SNES hardware. A Link to the Past is still a great game though. Despite being over 30 years old, it has aged like a fine wine.

I’ll admit this game is flawed. Death Mountain is a frustrating difficulty spike, respawning at Zelda’s castle every game over is stupid, progression is occassionally cryptic, and the items aren’t very interesting. However, those are the only problems I have with Zelda II: The Adventure of Link. In every other way, I think it’s an improvement over the first game.

The NPCs were more fleshed out, as they live in towns instead of isolated caves. When the hints worked, they were usually a lot more comprehensible. My favorite change was the combat. The side-scrolling perspective was a bold choice, but it led to more fun and intense battles in my experience. Who could forget their first time fighting an Iron Knuckle? The magic spells and additional sword techniques added a lot too, giving you a nice sense of progression. Lastly, I prefer the music of Zelda II over its predecessor. Not only are there more songs, but they tend to last longer before looping. The Palace theme in particular is quite lengthy given how early this was in the NES lifecycle.

Aside from the side-scrolling perspective and RPG elements, all of these changes became staples of the series and I’m very grateful for them. Given that there’s no other Zelda game like it, I would like to see Nintendo take another stab at it someday.

Many gamers hold Zelda 1 in high regard and for good reason. It started a legendary video game franchise and would even serve as the inspiration for Breath of the Wild three decades later. I can see why. Hyrule is completely indifferent to Link's presence in a way most games in the series are not. I enjoyed playing it for this reason, but I would be lying if I said I preferred to play Zelda 1 over most other games in the franchise. The hint system isn't always helpful, bombs that come in very limited quantities are required to progress through the later dungeons, and general progression in the game's second half is too cryptic. If you can stomach these relics of old game design or are interested in the series' history, it's worth a look.

At this point, there is little I can add to the conversation. This game is a masterpiece and one of my favorite games of all time. Having said that though, I highly disagree with the notion that the franchise needs to stick with the turn-based gameplay to be good. I have three reasons for believing this.

Firstly, if you include Super Mario RPG and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, this was the fourth Mario RPG in a row with the same gameplay and structure. It's likely the developers wanted to try out different kinds of strategic gameplay while still keeping the features that made Paper Mario unique from other RPG franchises (unique chapters, witty dialogue, and a straightforward goal). In fact, when this game originally came out, some people criticized it for feeling too familiar to Paper Mario 64, which already had a lot in common with Super Mario RPG.

My second reason is that despite my love for this game, it is not a flawless masterpiece. All of the Paper Mario games have issues. The backtracking in chapters 4 and 7 are obnoxious and it makes little sense for most partners in these games to keep following Mario all over the place or to not say anything unless you happen to have them selected. Good characters or partners in RPGs come from good dialogue and considerable screen time. In Paper Mario, however, the partners act like items in a Metroidvania, used to progress through otherwise inaccessible areas.

My final reason is that there have been good Paper Mario games that didn't use TTYD's gameplay. Super Paper Mario was a lot of fun and its shortcomings weren't caused by not adhering to its predecessor's gameplay, but rather not fully developing its own gameplay. It also helped that its story was perhaps the most complex of any Mario game to date. Paper Mario: The Origami King was similar. It rose above its flaws through powerful storytelling moments that I didn't think the developers were capable of.

My point is that Intelligent Systems has found ways to pleasantly surprise me with this series despite a lot of strange business and design choices. I am still very upset with Nintendo's restrictions on character designs. And yet, I still loved most of the time I've spent with Paper Mario. It doesn't matter that TTYD is one of my favorite games. What matters is that Intelligent Systems refuses to play it safe with the world's most successful gaming mascot. For that alone, they have earned my respect and I can't wait to see where they will take Paper Mario next.

Trials of Mana has all the bells and whistles of an iterative sequel. The combat is faster and less glitchy then Secret of Mana with fun bosses that have really cool designs. The music and graphics are stunning, pushing the capabilities of the SNES to its absolute limits. The game is huge with different characters to play as, complete with different endings depending on your party layout. This game is so big Square didn’t localize it until the Mana Collection in 2019. A real shame, but better late than never. If you want a good classic RPG with real-time combat, Trials of Mana is the best one I’ve played.

Secret of Mana is worth a look, but I have several disclaimers. The first several hours are VERY rough. The enemies and bosses are not balanced very well and you can only save at inns or the cat merchant, which are located outside of the game’s dungeons. The final dungeon is also very long and doesn’t give you a chance to save unless you backtrack all the way out. The save states on the collection help, but it doesn’t excuse the terrible design. The hit detection is also wonky and you get stunned for a few seconds every time you’re hit, which is frustrating against groups of enemies that attack in unsynchronized patterns. Weapon proficiency and especially magic also require a ton of grinding to keep at a reasonable level.

If you can get past all of that, pretty much everything else is great. While the story won’t blow your socks off, it gives a good excuse to travel through some stunning landscapes. The sprite work is gorgeous and the sound quality is really advanced for a 16-bit game. The music is no different. It’s one of the best soundtracks on the SNES. When the combat works, it’s quite satisfying and there are multiple different weapons you can use. Once the game hit its stride, I had a hard time putting it down.

Considering this came out on the Game Boy and was the start of the Mana series, I was pleasantly surprised with how solid it was overall. It doesn’t do anything amazing by today’s standards, but it doesn’t stumble very often either. Most of the time, I figured out where I needed to go. The combat also felt good and I was not expecting the ending to be so bittersweet. The music was surprisingly charming given the sound limitations. If you get the Mana collection on Switch, I recommend playing this first so you can appreciate the improvements made in the later games.