I said both Ultima 1 and Elite predate Zelda, you said "no they don't" - I said "check your dates" - that's what I'm talking about.

Not as open as Zelda? Mate, have you ever played Elite, that's very definition of open world game? Now I know that you love all things Zelda, but let's that not cloud your judgement on this one - you can't just twist history to your liking.

we misunderstood each other it seems..

when i said "no they dont" i meant as a true open world game and not who made the first open world game theres a difference.

So basically, this.  Zelda was the first major open-world game.  You could even do some of the dungeons completely out of order if you were good enough.  In the old days, we didn't even get a turorial or a map...

I like open world, but I have to agree that Batman:AA was better than B:AC.  I like them both in different ways, but AA is just a tighter experience and captures the classic Batman "feel" better.  AC made lots of advancements, but at some sacrifice of execution.  Regardless, the opinion is not a "joke" to say it's better, that's for sure.

I think OP means first real sandbox game as opposed to first true open world game. Most LoZ's are open world, and the original was also sandbox.

However; MGSV was not a true sandbox game, so I don't really get the comparison here... you were allowed a lot of different missions and areas to roam, but certain things you couldn't access and there were still mission areas you couldn't leave during the game.

Come December when Xenblade X releases, I think we will get a first real feel of what Nintendo is going for.I do agree with OP that adventure as opposed to story has always been LoZ's primary focus. So I think it may translate better to a sandbox game better than both MGSV and Xenoblade X. Time will tell.

Well, while some might argue that Ultima 1 is not "true" (whatever that means) open-world game, Elite is very definition of "true" open world game - I can understand how people who only played consoles back in the day have little knowledge of it, but Elite was sort of a phenomenon back then and its legacy is as important in its genre as Zelda's is in its own.

Besides, those two are not only ones, just from my memory for example, before GTA, back in 86 on C64/ZX, there was this game called Miami Vice that was pretty much precursor to GTA - it's just that people usually remember game that had most mass market exposure, but that still doesn't change the facts.

you contradict yourself a bit here but never mind...

it looks like you completely forgot or dismissed what i said 3-4 posts ago

Wind Waker is not really an open world game imo, although it does a good job at faking it. Yeah, technically once you get the boat you can sail to whatever island you want, but you can't really DO anything at most islands. Most of them require some item in order to accomplish whatever you need to do on it. That is not like a true open world game where you can go anywhere and do anything regardless of level or items right off the bat. I mean, in the original LoZ, if you are really really good, you can clear some of the highest level dungeons as soon as the game begins. That cannot be said for Wind Waker.

Not sure what you're reffering to, but it seems to me that you're trying to dismiss that there were open-world games, both "true" and "not true" before Zelda 1, and that no matter how much important that game was, there are others that were as influentual and predate it - so, in the end, and that's where all this started, Zelda 1 is not first open-world game (true or otherwise).

Only Zelda 1 and Lorule Kingdoom in ALBW are open world. And for the OP, yes, depends on the kind of game they want to make, I can see another linear Zelda game like Skyward Sword being made in the future.