I made this post in reply to someone else, but honestly I think it works better on its own. Less confrontational, too.
If there's one thing that I've dwelled on over this past year when it comes to TotK, it's how much I genuinely appreciated its story, and how little I always cared for the 'but nobody recognises Link!' style of complaints surrounding it.
Said complaints are somewhat weird to begin with. Whilst there are some noticeable exceptions (Hestu & Bolson most notably), numerous relevant NPCs do know who you are. But even before that, I don't see why every random NPC needs to reference that they know who Link, specifically, is. The dude's a near-mute, highly-stoic soldier who is - for the most part - just Zelda's body-guard. For the majority of Hyrule's population, Link will have been that guy who showed up years back to do some random shit just before the Divine Beast/Calamity Ganon issue was fixed. Whilst those he interacted with most will, and do, acknowledge that, it's not like every random shopkeeper or townsperson is going to go "oh my god! Link!" at every meeting.
Most importantly is how, on a gameplay front, Link is still, well, Link. The 'Link' between player and world. Having Link be a major celebrity akin to Iron Man or Spider-Man would inherently break that connection, and for little actual thematic benefit. Making those who are new to the franchise more confused than is really necessary. It's always worth remembering that Nintendo makes these games for everyone, and for Nintendo 'everyone' includes all the kids who grew up into 'playing their first Zelda game' ages in the 6 year period between the two titles.
Though, really, I often find that the "what about the Sheikah tech?!" or "why don't people recognise Link!?" questions ignore so many of the ways in which the game does connect to its predecessor, or how said connections relate more to the game's artistic themes than simple lore explanations ever could.
Zelda, arguably the real main character of these games' stories, is shown to have grown significantly between the two titles and, fittingly, is far more well-known than her rando bodyguard. Pre-existing settlements have changed in ways that make thematic sense with what came before. Again, every major NPC has taken a new and/or improved role befitting of what happened to them in BotW. Even some of the most minor 'random side quest' characters from the first game are given some unique role in the second that shows natural growth between games. Like the sisters who move from wild mushroom hunting, to caving for even rarer mushrooms, the random band of amateur adventurers in the Gerudo Desert going on to helm the anti-Monster crews, or the traveller you find in Hateno village having settled down with the girl who works at the Inn.
Yes, the nitty-gritty details aren't always there... but, to me, TotK represented one of a very, very small number of sequels where the world it takes place in feels like it's genuinely progressed. There's so much growth and change within the game's myriad of stories, and - even if they're simple stories - I find the near-constant positivity and optimism throughout them to be genuinely refreshing. Where BotW has a world simply trying to survive in the ruins of a major disaster, TotK has a world that's doing its utmost best to create, and do, new things with itself. One where the majority care more about learning, and enriching the land around them, than they do about murdering another faction or whatever. One that's so unique in a gameplay landscape where practically every world represents the worst of humanity far, far more often than the best of it.
Idk; I just find that people tend hyperfocus too much on the areas in which the game's story and world 'falters' in the context of a sequel, instead of placing any real attention on the way those things succeed, or even giving them a chance to succeed. I mean, it's not like said hyperfocus has ever been Nintendo's own 'thing' to begin with. So many of the questions about "why doesn't 'x' happen in TotK?" can really just boil down to how Nintendo always does sequels: they want to create 'legends' that are more focused on thematic and gameplay-oriented cores, than detailed lore and narratives that make 100% perfect sense. Storybooks and fabled told by the campfire, instead of a gameplay version of the Silmarillion. After all it's pretty much always been the fans who have pestered them to make 'more lore' for the franchise. With Nintendo's attempts to appease such pestering leading to clearly half-assed efforts like the 'official Zelda timeline', which tried to piece together a canon made up of Legends into some concrete things. A mistake on Nintendo's part, tbqh.
So to conclude with a particularly spicy point... I found TotK's world to be more interesting and impactful overall than The Lands Between. I'd elaborate but, tbh, I don't want to lol.
