| maxleresistant said:
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. |
No, they aren't. Not the good ones. Zelda is at its worse when it's linear, and the linear ones aren't even in open worlds outside of Wind Waker, which is why its the best one. ALBW is how Zelda games should be, and even that is too linear.
Zelda can literally only be Zelda when it's open world and open progression. The only things they'll lose is all the linear nonsense they have put in Zelda games since the 3D era to destract people from the fact that the hardware wasn't strong enough to replicate the open world vastness of Zelda 1, which is what Zelda is supposed to be - pure, unguided freedom in an intricate open world. And semi-linear, tone-shifting dungeons. That's what is returning in Zelda U and that's the way it's supposed to be.
