|
TheMythmaker said:
I have to quibble with you on...pretty much everything.
First, removing the story. As an experiment, maybe, but as an actual direction for an adventure series to take? Ludicrous.
The removal of the story removes the ability of the game to TELL a story. It removes a sense of forward movement that a plot gives an adventure. Sure, the Original Zelda got away with minimal story, but that was due to its scale. What small plot was there (Find Triforce, beat Ganon), was acceptable because, truthfully, the scale of the game was small.
Secondly, by removing any structure to the game, you remove the context of the game. What are you playing for? To get stronger so you can beat stronger enemies? To what end?
The kind of game you're suggesting will never be made because gaming has progressed past that. Simple mechanics work for simple games, but as environments get larger and games get longer, they stretch too thin to be fun.
In short, you want a concept, not an actual game.
|
I can't comment on Zelda, but I do want to say... If you do this, you get Minecraft. There's no story, the only real goal is to beat the End, and you can basically do whatever the heck you want. And what happened was people took the game and made a whole ton of stories/games/whatever for other people to try. Minecraft is what you make of it. I realize that this isn't an entirely accurate comparison, but I think it shows that those kinds of games can exist and do well.
