Whatever. Going to disagree with you and move on before this turns into a CAPS and the words straw appear.
Nah man, dont worry about it, Im just rambling Zelda.
I was just listing the fundamental design changes in each series, Im not really responding to your phase theory, as much as just responding to individual games, because its just too fuzzy to me. Im also thrown off a bit at the line drawn at the series starting with Oot... I have trouble not looking at the series as a whole.
Ill try though, so let me see if Im getting this right.
First You explain that a reboot is all about starting over with series canon, but then state that this isnt that kind of reboot. I get that, though I dont think I really see it the same way. Reboots are all about starting the story line over to me, and as such are mostly arbitrary, cosmetic, and ultimately rather inconsequential to me, beyond modernizing the story. And really, the story in Zelda games really doesnt add up to more than 2 poots for me. In fact, story by its actual definition is actually the enemy of good Zelda design, as a story is a specific sequence of events. When people talk about story, they really mean the combination of story, plot, and characterization/character dialogue. Something that truly needs to be deconstructed and examined to find a suitable use for videogames, as the traditional conventions of what makes for good stories for written books, varies vastly from the combination that makes for a good movie, and both vary vastly from the combination that would make a good fit for a videogame. Although... I guess I just rambled all this for nothing, as story isnt involved in this style reboot you are talking about.
So you state that phase 1 is albw's, but I just dont see the games design as anything other than a gimmick. Yeah, it lets you go in any order you want but.... 'not like this' gif. I dont see it as any different than any of the other changes to progress design expiriments of any of the other changes, like switching from a tile based overworld to a hub based overworld, where you still had a lot of freedom to enact your agency of the designers intent. The only difference is this time, its part of the game design, and its so loose it feels like a really hollow victory. But I guess I can see it as like, prototype stepping stone? Though I just dont see it being much use to Zelda U in that regaurd.
Then phase 2 is... hyrule warriors I think? Or were you talking about something else then used hyrule warriors as another example? I dont know. I dont really see hyrule warriors as that much different than crossbow training in relation to being a zelda game as far as the Zelda franchise series goes (***EDIT***** OOOOHHHHHH You were talking about crossbow training as the plastic peripheal gimmick thing right?). Its a fun action spin off, but its not even trying to be a zelda game. The four swords multiplayer games fit into this mold as well, so I cant really think of it as this new phase for transforming/rebooting the series... As again, the series seems like its always transforming at a fundamental level, beneath the 'Zelda formula' layer, and action oriented spin offs are nothing new.
And phase 3 is Zelda u. Which is a return to open world Zelda, like the first tile based games and games based on the tile based system (though this is not applied to all overhead zeldas, the gba ones onward were tile based and overhead, but the overworld was incredibly streamlined), and later different games attempted to emulate in different ways (Zelda 2 not to scale overwirld/map world, along with phantom hourglass and spirit tracks), or overly compromised ways like wind waker, or the hub designs of oot and tp, or inverted hubs of mm or ss.
To me I dont see a Re-boot, although I dont feel we know enough about the story to tell if its a 'reboot' reboot. I just see a long time coming realization of potential. A Zelda that is finally free from having to use overly huge scale tricks like extreme distance/time compression foreshortening (seperate paths and tunnels, seperated by screens used to foreshorten time and distance) to present what is supposed to be a huge world, without it being an empty ocean.
Although, I think, if I remove all the Zeldas before the use of the hub world designs, I began to get an idea of the picture you are talking about.
I guess I just dont see it as a mechanical( not story or lore) reboot, because I see it as 'This is what we always really wanted Zelda to be, but just couldnt practically do with the technology/experience of the time'. As such, since this is what they have always been striving for, but always been reduced to faking it, thus I dont see it as a reboot of mechanics, or conventions.
Summary of rambling time:
I feel that Zelda U is the result of the combination of hardware power, and Monolithsoft's open world experience being brought over with their involvement of the zelda titles, allowing the team to finally do what theyve always wanted but have been unable to.
I dont see the 3ds game being a part of that, because its stuck with the hardware constraints of trying to fake the open world experience.
I dont see hyrule warriors (? Im still not sure if I got this right, if this is what you were referring too) as part of it, as its not trying to be a Zelda game.
I guess what Im saying, is I just dont see it as a reboot, phases or no, but I also dont really feel I have a clear picture of what you personally consider a reboot in this regaurd, so maybe Im not even responding correctly to what you were talking about.
Or maybe what you feel is a reboot, and I feel is the realization of potential via hardware power and personell experience finally matching the ambition of Zelda is one and the same.
Regaurdless, I still want to talk Zelda.
