| Pajderman said: I think the number of games in a series that play a certain way is more relevant for that series â€DNA†than what the first game in the series was. |
Fair point but then the number of games isn't an absolute factor for example in future this stance becomes contradicted because more games will be like BOTW and thus would be argued that it is the DNA of the series under the same logic, especially for a series like Zelda which actually doesn't have that many mainline games to begin with. The other games have differences but they all retained the same rigid lock and key structure something the original was more lenient with for example look up retrospectives of the original game one thing that commonly comes up is the aspect of the open adventure something that you don't hear with the games after this is because of how they were structured and this is something the Zelda team felt needed to be addressed.
How prior games played doesn't mean that's the only way the DNA of the series can be either the are other aspects of the formula that can be focused on, you may like them focusing on the part of the DNA you enjoyed but for the series it was starting to become a liability especially as this is meant to be one of the first party big hitters and the is a lot in the DNA of Zelda to begin with which is why the first game comes up a lot. We saw this happen with another series in Resident Evil as it was in trouble sticking to the same formula and the series received a shake up in RE4, like you some argued about how the prior games were as far as series DNA goes but now more games in the series use RE4's gameplay template than the old.
