Tears of the Kingdom: How do you write a Zelda sequel?

May 12, 2024 • 2800 words (12 min)

Comparing Tears of the Kingdom and Majora's Mask

Direct sequels are rare in the Legend of Zelda series. Arguably, there have only been two: Majora's Mask, the sequel to Ocarina of Time, and Tears of the Kingdom, the sequel to Breath of the Wild. Each of these sequels handles their relationship to their original game and the series as a whole in different ways. They both followed groundbreaking entries in the Zelda series that were not only incredible games, but redefined the franchise in innovative ways. Ocarina of Time set the standard for 3D Zelda games going forward, while Breath of the Wild evolved that formula into a fully open-world setting. Their sequels were given the impossible task of following up on their groundbreaking predecessors, and they did it in different ways. Majora's Mask is vastly different from Ocarina of Time and pretty much every other Zelda game, forgoing many of the staples of the series in favor of a unique setting and story (although it does reuse a lot of assets and game mechanics) that created a satisfying narrative arc between the two games. Tears of the Kingdom reuses Breath of the Wild's setting and overall story structure without a sense of continuity between the two games' narratives, returning to the standard Zelda plot of collecting Sages and defeating Ganondorf. In my opinion, Majora's Mask succeeds in many areas where Tears of the Kingdom fails. Let's compare the two and see how they deal with their predecessors and their roles as a sequel, as well as their roles in the series as a whole.

Before diving into the story, I want to discuss gameplay. Both Majora's Mask and Tears of the Kingdom reuse a lot from their predecessors—which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Along with character models, weapons, and items, both games reuse the gameplay style of their predecessors. With Majora's Mask, this isn't a problem outside of a few weirdly placed items. (Why is the Lens of Truth, themed after the Shadow Temple and the Sheikah, in the Gorons' area?) Ocarina of Time's gameplay isn't tied to its storytelling in an intrinsic way other than the time warp mechanic, which Majora's Mask reinvents into a mechanic that's even more essential to its themes and tone. Tears of the Kingdom, however, is a different story. The open world in Breath of the Wild, especially the vast swaths of emptiness and the atmosphere created by the minimal music and gentle fog over distant landscapes, serves a specific purpose: to make you feel utterly alone. Breath of the Wild takes place in a post-apocalyptic Hyrule, where settlements are few and far between, and Link is isolated for most of his adventure. Tears of the Kingdom copies this gameplay, but its tone is very different. It's trying to create a sense of community as various characters help Link. He's no longer alone in the wilderness, since the sages' avatars join him in exploring (unless you get overwhelmed and turn them off, like I did). This attempted sense of community grinds up against the isolation that the leftover elements from Breath of the Wild convey, and it leaves the game confused about what tone it's going for.

The ruins that are scattered across the landscape also contradict Tears of the Kingdom's tone. They convey the desolation and despair that they did in Breath of the Wild, but again, that goes against the main theme of Tears of the Kingdom, which is rebuilding. Multiple side quests contribute to this theme, such as the Lurelin village quest and small tasks to build things for characters, as well as the central game mechanic of Ultrahand. Despite this theme of rebuilding, not much has changed around Hyrule. The ruins are still crumbling and the settlements are still scattered: there's a single new town (Lookout Landing) and a few with significant changes (Tarrey Town and Kakariko Village), but everywhere else looks pretty much the same. Because Tears of the Kingdom made such minimal changes to Breath of the Wild's map, there's nothing to support it's central theme of rebuilding, and nothing to show how people have recovered in the five or so years of peace since Link last defeated Ganon. Even the small time skip feels like a cop-out to avoid having to show newfound growth in Hyrule. In contrast, the reused assets in Majora's Mask serve a distinct purpose in its tone and themes: Termina is a nightmarish reflection of Hyrule, and characters that share a face but not a name with characters in the previous game creates an eerie sense of deja vu.

Another point to compare is how well each game continues the story of their predecessor. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask create one cohesive narrative, which I talked about in another essay: Ocarina of Time & Majora's Mask: Trauma & Recovery. It's remarkable how well the two games handle the depth of theme in their stories, and they use a unique storytelling device of implying an internal character arc for Link through external events. On the other hand, Tears of the Kingdom is uninterested in being a direct narrative sequel to Breath of the Wild, and tries to make itself accessible to people who haven't played its predecessor. I wouldn't mind this as much if it wasn't laden with references to Breath of the Wild that it refuses to explore in depth. We return to the same civilizations with the same characters on a new step of their journeys, but Tears of the Kingdom won't acknowledge key story beats that shaped the beginning of these journeys. For example, Breath of the Wild's Champions are never mentioned by characters, even when they would be directly relevant. (I don't think Mipha is even mentioned outside of the new location Mipha Court, despite having living relatives.) Tulin creates his own wind technique similar to Revali's Gale, but the characters act like Tulin's ability is a novel concept, and Revali isn't mentioned once. Of course, it's been a hundred years since the Champions died, but it hasn't been that long since Link worked with their spirits to defeat the evil that was terrorizing everyone for a hundred years. There are also references to the Champions and the Divine Beasts in item descriptions, the most egregious of which is the Divine Beast helms that are still around, even though every almost other piece of Sheikah technology has somehow disappeared with no explanation. (And no, I don't care about "word of god" explanations; nothing in the game hints at where the near-omnipresent Sheikah technology went other than the new towers, which are too small to have used every piece of the Guardians and Divine Beasts. Even if everything sunk back underground or disintegrated or something, solving this issue would have been as simple as giving a character a single piece of dialogue about it. This plot hole is distracting to someone who has played Breath of the Wild and expected a follow-up to that game's open-ended finale, and it shows Tears of the Kingdom's disinterest in continuing its predecessor's story while stringing players along on tiny references that become more and more nonsensical as characters refuse to acknowledge their pasts.)

A Critique of Tears of the Kingdom

The area where Tears of the Kingdom disregards Breath of the Wild that is particularly frustrating to me is with the game's themes. Breath of the Wild stands as a radical departure from the Zelda formula, and its story reflects that. In Breath of the Wild, the past is deeply flawed. The king's strict adherence to tradition damages his relationship with Zelda, and the stress he puts on her might have played a part in her failing to unlock her power in the traditional way, by praying to Hylia. The king also uses ancient Sheikah technology, relying on a legend from 10,000 years ago, and assembles a team of Champions, calling back to classic Zelda games like Ocarina of Time. However, this all fails, and Hyrule is destroyed by Ganon. Similar to in Wind Waker (which I haven't played yet), the king acts a representation of the failures of the past, while it's up to the younger generation to create a new path forward. The ending of Breath of the Wild seems, at least to me, to imply a future without the structures and strict traditions of old. There's a clear parallel between this theme and Breath of the Wild's position in the series, proposing a break from the formula that had defined the previous games and grown old. However, in response to both the backlash against Breath of the Wild as "not a real Zelda game" and its financial success, Tears of the Kingdom did not continue this theme. It copied Breath of the Wild's structure without doing anything innovative with it, which is what made Breath of the Wild special in the first place, while its story was a regression back to the same Zelda formula. The failures of the past are irrelevant in Tears of the Kingdom: the game is about redoing everything Rauru, the first king of Hyrule, did to defeat Ganondorf with no second thoughts or criticism. While the interactions with the Champions and their descendants in Breath of the Wild were about providing closure for a century-old wound, the new Sages in Tears of the Kingdom have no relationship with their ancestors beyond copying their actions. Sure, Rauru failed, just like Zelda's father did, but that says nothing about the strength of his plan or the ideals behind it; he just didn't try hard enough, I guess. While Zelda's father was a complex, flawed character whose mistakes could be avoided with a second chance and a new outlook on tradition, Rauru is an uncritical force of good, and Tears of the Kingdom is uninterested in exploring what I think are deep issues with his mindset and actions.

Before diving deeper into my criticism of Tears of the Kingdom, I want to say that I did like some elements of its story. The development of Link and Zelda's relationship was sweet, and I wish she wasn't separated from him for the entire game again. The reveal that Zelda was the Light Dragon was one of the few points of the story that hit me as hard emotionally as Breath of the Wild did, and the entire ending sequence with the dragon fight and catching Zelda falling was spectacular, although I was disappointed that she turned back into her old self. The lead-up to the Wind Temple was also incredible, and I liked how the dungeon used a ton of musical motifs from Breath of the Wild (the dungeon music acknowledges the Divine Beasts more than the game), even if the new music as a whole was a step down. It was also fun to see how characters from Breath of the Wild had grown and their characters designs had changed. Now, back to complaining.

By returning to a more standard Zelda story, Tears of the Kingdom draws heavily on Ocarina of Time (which also draws heavily on A Link to the Past, but I haven't played that game). Link once again has to travel to elemental-themed dungeons to recruit Sages for Rauru, the Sage of Light, to defeat Ganondorf. Tears of the Kingdom had the opportunity to engage critically with some of Ocarina of Time's flawed elements and provide depth to areas where it was lacking. For example, the Gerudo are portrayed in a very Orientalist light, an issue that is present throughout the series, including Breath of the Wild. This post provides more details. Tears of the Kingdom could have contended with this portrayal, but of course it doesn't. The Gerudo women still wear stereotypical "belly dancer" outfits and block outside men from entering their harem—I mean, town. Ganondorf is still on a quest to do some ambiguous evil to the world, despite the hope of many fans that he would have more depth. In Tears of the Kingdom, he's the ruler of an independent nation that refuses to bow to Rauru's new Hyrule kingdom, which has seemingly absorbed ever other preexisting monarchy in Hyrule, like the Zora. Rather than Ganondorf's initial retaliation being portrayed as an understandable reaction to Rauru—a member of the race that portrayed themselves as gods to the Hylians, who is basically taking over the rest of the world—encroaching on his territory, the game simplifies his motivations into a lust for power. He kills the queen for her Secret Stone, and he wants to cast the world into eternal night, whatever that means. I don't necessarily want Ganondorf to be a downtrodden good guy, but an exploration of how his complex relationship with Hyrule kingdom and the parallels between both his and Rauru's grabs for power could add much-needed depth to both of their characters. Instead, Ganondorf is unabashedly evil and his motivations are boring. From a modern perspective, he reads as a Middle Eastern-coded character rejecting imperialism, but the game has no sympathy for this concept, so Ganondorf is demonized (literally) and Rauru is unquestionably good.

Tears of the Kingdom also doesn't engage with Ocarina of Time any deeper than surface-level references to the main plot about the Sages. Other games in the series have often tried to add something to what Ocarina of Time set up. For example, Wind Waker gave Ganondorf a bit more depth and deals with the concept of a world forsaken by the gods, which Majora's Mask also hinted at. Twilight Princess delves into the theme of the corruption of power with its infamous creepy cutscene, and also continues Ocarina of Time's Link's storyline. Skyward Sword provided an entire backstory for the cycle of resurrection between Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf. The parts of Tears of the Kingdom's story that are taken from Ocarina of Time feel lackluster in comparison. It doesn't add anything new to their portrayal other than the introduction of the Zonai, which are ironically less interesting than they were in Breath of the Wild, where they were barely hinted at. Anything intriguing about them—where they came from, what happened to leave them with only two members, what their society looked like at its peak—is unexplored, and they're left as a less interesting copy of the ancient Sheikah from Breath of the Wild.

My final point is leaning more into wish fulfillment rather than critique, but when I played Ocarina of Time, the one concept I wanted to see a future Zelda game grapple with was the dark history of Hyrule, hinted at by the Shadow Temple. I didn't pay much attention to the marketing of Tears of the Kingdom leading up to its release, but I remember being under the impression that it was going to be a much darker Zelda game—which it wasn't. Still, it could have been the perfect opportunity to explore on of the few ideas from Ocarina of Time that hasn't been touched by the rest of the series. Breath of the Wild set up the royal family's downfall and gave the Sheikah a much larger role than in previous games, and its sequel could have expanded on this lore furhter by bringing in elements from Ocarina of Time's Kakariko village and Shadow Temple. Tears of the Kingdom even begins with Link and Zelda diving underground to uncover Hyrule's history, much like how Ocarina of Time's Link dives beneath Kakariko village to discover a hidden catacomb and torture chambers. The Shadow Temple adds a new layer of depth to your understanding of the royal family and Hyrule's past, which wasn't fully explored in Ocarina of Time; Tears of the Kingdom could have been the missing piece of the puzzle. Sadly, it falls back on Ocarina of Time's storyline without engaging with its darker elements.

Needless to say, I was disappointed with Tears of the Kingdom. Outside of Zelda's subplot, the story felt like a lackluster repeat of both Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. After playing Majora's Mask, my disappointment with the game as a sequel only grew. Majora's Mask managed to do the impossible: it was radically different from anything else in the series, but it continued its predecessor's story in a cohesive and emotionally fulfilling way. Tears of the Kingdom had the opportunity to do so much more with what it had, but it was brought down by reusing a gameplay system that wasn't designed for the story it wanted to tell, a story that wasn't interested in engaging with its own themes and potential concepts any deeper than surface level. It's a sequel that doesn't want to be a sequel, and it suffers for that.