Hmmm I think that’s because you value fresh map exploration very highly.

There are many other aspects of the game, like interaction (fusion and ultra hand etc) and plot progression, that people are interested in way more than the map itself. I think there are also fans who would rather it be still Hyrule and see what they can do differently with the same map + new land masses.

I think it’s ok for you to like new maps, but I’m not sure if your use of ‘lazy’ is warranted all things considered.

I mean let’s say, they give Link all the powers from BOTW but throw him in a new map, would you prefer this over new powers in semi-old map with new land masses? What if the old map has changed in their locale? Or is the location that it is hyrule what is putting you off?

Of course the best case scenario for you is new map and new powers.

But you know, exploration isn’t the same for everyone, and maybe the fans you think are defending it for being lazy aren’t actually caring so much that it has to be an entirely new map, but may even be excited to explore the same Hyrule they love in a very new way.

I also think you should consider that development for new mechanics such as this is actually quite intensive, and a lot of focus is placed there. And these new mechanics have to interact with the land in new ways such that the same ‘map’ you see has to be changed in code to fit the new game.

The examples you gave like Far Cry and Spider-Man, you say they changed things up a bit. Do you think TOTK mechanics is equivalent to ‘change things up a bit’? So in this case are they fair examples to use as comparison?

I’m speaking from a gamedev perspective here, not as a Zelda fan, because I’m also interested in the overall design decisions and direction Nintendo made.