By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Once Zelda goes open world, will it ever go back? *EDITED*

maxleresistant on 06 October 2015

 

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. 



Around the Network
maxleresistant on 06 October 2015
TheLastStarFighter said:
ps3-sales! said:
Those saying Zelda has always been open world seem to be confused on the concept of open world. Open world to me (and most people) basically means you are usually dropped in the middle of the entire game from the start after some sort of linear opening/tutorial.

Skyrim is open world. Fallout is open world. The Witcher is open world. WoW is open world.

Zelda has open world elements. Pokemon has open world elements. Mario 3d has open world elements. Destiny has open world elements. MGS5 has open world elements.

If you don't understand the difference then I'm sorry.

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...

That's because the first Zelda's world wasn't big. It was open, yes, but it wasn't so big that you got tired going through it, also the games was pretty short. It wasn't repetitive either.

Nowadays nintendo can't and won't do an open world zelda game that short and that small. It's really not a good comparison.



maxleresistant on 06 October 2015
ps3-sales! 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.

Your comment become a joke when you said Arkham Asylum is better than Arkham City. 

 

But hey, that's like your opinion man. 

 

AC has some amazing open world games with the masterpiece AC2, also Black Flag and Brotherhood. Far Cry 3 and 4 were amazing games. 

 

None of those 3 series got old to me (and almost all that played then) 

 

Sorry but you're in the minority when you say that. Nothing wrong with disliking open world games. They're just not your thing. 

 

But try not to speak on behalf on the majority of gamers. 


I would like you to explain to me where in my comment did I say that I speak for all gamers. Do you speak for all gamers? Should I think that all people that don't start a comment by saying "I speak only for myself" speak for the entire humanity? 

Or should I just be smart and think that it is a personal opinion.

As for liking open World games, yes I like them. Do I think that a majority of gamers love them? No. Do I think the majority of Zelda fans would love a Zelda game with all the problems that you can found in other Open World games? Still No.

But again. It is my opinion. I don't blame you for liking  Open world games, but I think that what makes Zelda great, is the fact that it is a good mix of open world and linear. I think that if it goes all open world, it could mean that we are going to loose what makes Zelda great.

Or it could mean that Nintendo is going to do a great job, and that an Open World Zelda will be even better than a regular Zelda. Nobody knows right now, not even Nintendo.



Frogger on 06 October 2015
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.



Frogger on 06 October 2015
Pavolink said:
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.


No, all the 2D games and Wind Waker are open world, too. Open world it a kind of level design. Just because a game is linear in campaign progression doesn't mean it's not set in an open world.



Around the Network
SJReiter on 06 October 2015
spemanig said:
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.


I disagree with this completely. I do not believe that simply because the first Zelda was open world and non-linear that the series is 'supposed' to be that way. I think the reason for the change in style was not to 'distract' players from hardware limitations, it was instead because Nintendo realized that you need to give players some sort of driving motivation to play the game. A lot of people were very frustrated by the first Zelda because it literally just plopped you on a map and gave you no direction at all. Zelda games, as is true with any good game, need some sort of narrative push to drive the players towards accomplishing a goal. The motivation simply cannot be "to explore the world." That is not enough, and you're kidding yourself if you think that Zelda Wii U won't have the same sort of linearity as previous 3D Zeldas (although maybe not quite as restrictive).



rolltide101x on 06 October 2015
kljesta64 said:
HoloDust said:


Yeah, not really - both Ultima 1 and Elite predate it, to mention just those two, since they are well known.

yes really and no they dont.

like i said true open world meaning from start of the game you can play the dungeons in any order (meaning you can go wherever you want) except for the last dungeon.

LOL, who decided this?



Ljink96 on 06 October 2015

It's been Open World for some time, albeit a different style than say MGSV or GTA. As long as the games have a story to accompany the gameplay, I don't care what Nintendo does with Zelda. The only goof that I consider is "Crossbow Training" but that was just a marketing game.



Frogger on 06 October 2015
SJReiter said:

I disagree with this completely. I do not believe that simply because the first Zelda was open world and non-linear that the series is 'supposed' to be that way. I think the reason for the change in style was not to 'distract' players from hardware limitations, it was instead because Nintendo realized that you need to give players some sort of driving motivation to play the game. A lot of people were very frustrated by the first Zelda because it literally just plopped you on a map and gave you no direction at all. Zelda games, as is true with any good game, need some sort of narrative push to drive the players towards accomplishing a goal. The motivation simply cannot be "to explore the world." That is not enough, and you're kidding yourself if you think that Zelda Wii U won't have the same sort of linearity as previous 3D Zeldas (although maybe not quite as restrictive).


"A lot of people were frustrated with the original Zelda."

...The original Zelda is the second best selling franchise on the NES. Who cares if a few people were frustrated. They can play Mario instead. Zelda was made to be the polar opposite of Mario, and it did that job well.

And yes it was. Both Miyamoto and Aonuma confirmed that. They could never do what they wanted to do with the open world because the hardware couldn't handle it. The closest they got to it was with Wind Waker, as Aonuma said. Then TP and SS went back to being too linear again, and now with stronger hardware, they can finally make the Zelda it was always supposed to be. Aonuma literally said they were testing their ideas for Zelda U in ALBW. Guess what? It's the most non-linear 2D Zelda game since the original LoZ. Even less linear than Zelda 3.

ALBW was critically acclaimed, and it didn't have any sort of linear narrative to "drive the player." That's not what Zelda was ever supposed to be, and it's about damn time they got their shit together in that regard. Aonuma literally confirmed that you'd be tackling dungeons in any order you want in Zelda U. You know the only Zelda's that did that? Zelda 1 and to a slightly lesser extent ALBW. You're kidding yourself if you think, after literally being told exactly how Zelda U would not be linear, that it will still have anywhere near any sort of linearity found in the 3D games.

The motivation most definitely is just "explore the world." It was in Zelda 1, which Aonuma directly referanced when talking about what this game will be like, and it was in ALBW, which Aonuna directly stated was how Zelda U would be like. If exploration is not enough for you, play something else, because you'll hate future Zelda's.



HoloDust on 06 October 2015

They've been slacking for way too long - maybe N64 was not enough for open world game, but GC and Wii were more than enough, so TP and SS not being more like 2D Zeldas comes down to usual suspect, Aonuma.

For whatever reason he pulled his head out of his ass (market trends or Miyamoto), glad to see that's changing with Zelda U.