The Serendipity Trap 

Serendipity. n.
The occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way.

While researching the menu design for The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom, I came across a BBC interview with Nintendo’s co-director Satoshi Terada, who justified the menu navigation UX by saying:

One of the essences of this game is being able to figure out different ways of using each of these echoes.

And so in that sense we wanted players to fall upon and see the echoes that they may not have noticed or have been using while they're sorting through all the echoes that they have.

In essence, the team made the menu intentionally broad and less streamlined - hoping players might stumble upon forgotten Echoes and rekindle creativity.

I don’t fully agree with this justification, but I do think there’s something worth unpacking here from a UX strategy standpoint.

Nintendo’s intent seems to be twofold:

• To give players a huge amount of choice, supporting different playstyles and creative personas through a large set of Echoes.

• To encourage experimentation, where players try out new approaches, use different items for similar tasks, and discover playful solutions through exploration and trial-and-error.

This approach echoes (pun intended) the design philosophy behind Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. Both games champion open-ended problem-solving - not just in combat or traversal - but also in how players piece together the games’ worlds. Tears pushed this even further with its Zonai device system and Fuse mechanics, empowering players to invent wildly different solutions to the same challenge.

In theory, this philosophy is brilliant. It celebrates creativity, encourages exploration, and fuels the social layer of gameplay - those moments where players share wild inventions or clever discoveries online.

But in the context of the quick select menu in Echoes, this philosophy doesn’t translate so smoothly.

It’s essentially saying:

We want players to explore and experiment with less used Echoes, so we’ll bombard them everything all at once — maybe they’ll get inspired. 

The problem is: they don’t.

When players open the Quick Select Menu, they’re not looking to explore, they’re trying to act. It’s a tool for execution, not discovery. Asking players to wade through more than a hundred Echoes during a time-sensitive action, hoping they’ll stumble on something new, contradicts this context.

The backlash around the quick-select system makes this disconnect clear. It’s not that players dislike the creative sandbox, they just don’t want the UI to be part of the puzzle in this specific context. Which leads to two bigger questions:

1. When is serendipity good in UX?

2. How could have Nintendo executed this concept differently?

When is serendipity good in UX?

Bumping into something nice by chance is common in digital experiences. For example, discovering music via recommendations on Spotify, stumbling across a new cafe while exploring Google Maps, scrolling on Pinterest or Instagram and finding something new yet connected to your interests, etc.

Even in games, this is quite common. Finding a new way to glide your car in Rocket League, defeating a Lynel using an updraft + bomb combo in Breath of the Wild, creating unexpected elements in Little Alchemy through experimentation, etc.

Across these examples, serendipity thrives in low-pressure environments where players are curious and exploring. It does not work well when fluidity, speed, and precision are required.

How could have Nintendo executed this concept differently?

Players already discover Echoes serendipitously in the game world, they do not need menus do this for them too. However the intent of supporting serendipity here is to reinforce the idea of creative freedom, exploration and experimentation in the game, which can certainly be a part of the UX strategy.

For this, the Quick Select Menu may not be the best option for reasons discussed above, however it could be realized in a low-pressure interface, such as the Notebook. The Notebook lists all unlocked Echoes in a grid with brief descriptions. Players can select Echoes from here too, making it a natural space for exploration without urgency. 

Some ways the Notebook UX could encourage experimentation and discovery:

1. Display both known and unknown Echoes: Currently, the menu only displays known Echoes, but unknown Echoes could appear as silhouettes with empty names/descriptions, hinting at what’s yet to be found and subtly pointing toward locations or forms (e.g., a fish-shaped silhouette hints at aquatic creatures).

2. Numbering: Similar to a Pokédex, Echoes can be referenced easily in discussions without revealing their abilities. (e.g. "I’m still looking for Echo#27. Where did you find it?")

3. Location indicators: Include screenshots and map with markers showing where an Echo was discovered. For unknown Echoes, this can possibly manifest as a "Clue" system that hints players about where an Echo can be found.

4. Sorting & Filtering options: The notebook allows you to surface least used and oldest Echoes for better visibility.

Additionally, these are some ways beyond the Notebook which could reinforce this idea:

• NPCs subtly mentioning Echo combinations (“Some folks use Rocks to cross rivers, but I use Barrels!”).

• Environmental cues hint at creative Echo uses. (The game already does this to an extent.)

• Echoes found in unusual places encourage experimentation (“Why is this chair in a cave?”)

• Side-quests encouraging the use of uncommon Echoes. (E.g. Cross a chasm without any flying echo.) 

These strategies preserve the feel of discovery without obstructing the Quick Select Menu’s function. Players experience serendipity as authored nudges, not frustrating obstacles.

Conclusion

Serendipity in UX thrives when users have room to play, not when they’re rushed. The intent behind Echoes’ menu wasn’t wrong, however design intent and user intent must align in context. Serendipity, after all, isn’t something you can force -  only invite.