One year on, Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom still doesn’t feel like a sequel – it’s a second act

During the marketing of The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, Nintendo left fans wondering how the game differed from Breath of the Wild. It wasn’t until the game was released that players discovered the unique differences it offered. While some fans were frustrated by the lack of acknowledgment of events from Breath of the Wild in Tears of the Kingdom, the game still managed to stand out on its own. The narrative choice to not directly discuss the previous game’s events was to make it more accessible to new players.

Despite the lack of direct references to Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom still manages to connect with its predecessor in interesting ways. Some players speculated on the disappearance of Divine Beasts and ancient Sheikah technology, which added depth to the storyline. As I delved deeper into the game, I realized that Tears of the Kingdom wasn’t just a sequel but a second act that built upon the foundation set by Breath of the Wild.

The seamless connection between the two games made me view them as a complete experience. Tears of the Kingdom felt like a natural progression, offering a unique Hyrule to explore. The game’s narrative choice to focus on the present rather than dwell on the past events of Breath of the Wild added a sense of urgency to the storyline.

Tears of the Kingdom, while building upon the foundation laid by Breath of the Wild, offered a more impactful narrative and one of the best final boss fights in the Zelda series. The game’s immersive storytelling and gameplay elements made it a standout title in the franchise.

The two Zelda titles, Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, complement each other to create a unique gaming experience. While some may argue about their structure resembling that of Ocarina of Time and Majora’s Mask, the two-act structure of these games sets them apart from the rest of the series.