spemanig said:
maxleresistant said:
I hope not, all "Open World" games are repetitive and boring.
The best thing about Zelda being "linear", is that it serves the gameplay and the storytelling, instead of just serving the "freedom" of the player.
Open world games are good for sandbox games like GTA or Just Cause, because the main thing to do is go around and have fun wrecking stuff. But for games like AC, Far Cry, the Arkham Series, etc etc, it gets really old really quick.
That is the difference between Arkham Asylum, a perfect game, and the rest of the series, which is really not as good.
Games needs to be kept to the point, tight gameplay, tight story, no filler, no boring side quests. |
Play another franchise then. Seriously, Zelda is a franchise who's only reason for exist is to be non linear and offer freedom. If you don't like open world, Zelda, as a franchise, is not for you. Being linear goes against the gameplay, and storytelling should never be prioritized over that. Just because those games are bad at open world doesn't mean open world sucks.
|
I put hyphenes for a reason dude. Zelda games are linear but set in an open world. I love zelda games, I own all of them, and I like the way they are.
Now we'll see how things goes for the next Zelda, but having a massive world is a double edge sword. You have to fill this world with something, you have to keep the player busy AND having fun. It's a really difficult task, one that few open world games are able to.
The simple question is this: Can Zelda still be Zelda if it is open world? People are so focused on what they will get by having an open world, they are not thinking about they we'll probably loose. Which is the series's ability to be fun and entertaining while giving a good sense of freedom to the player.
