HylianYoshi 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. |
The thing is, you could really just only play through the main story if you don't like the sidequests. Then that just leaves the gameplay, which is what defines a game better than just "open world". That's the main focus. I take it you just really hate traversing large landscapes.
|
Depends of the number of times you are traversing it. The variety etc.
Zelda should be ok, because there are mountains, fields, towns, beaches, snow, lava, deserts. Etc etc. But for example, traversing the Far Cry 3 map got really boring really quick.
And it all depends on how you use all those landscapes. The game should not make you feel like you are doing lots and lots of back and forth.
As for the sidequests, you can't just leave them, because in most of openworld, you need them to get more XP, or more equipments to finish the game. In zelda you need to collect hearts, in Far cry 3 you need to hunt, etc etc. So no, those "side"quests are not optional. And in many open world, they are just the same quests you are repeating over and over
