Gossip Stone:How Should Non-linearity be Handled in a Zelda game?

[snakeoiltanker]

First off I would just like to say that this is the first of many threads I will be posting on the Gossip Stone articles, and I would like to thank you for considering this thread as worthy to read. I feel that not only do many member not look at the main site, and are missing out on quality reading; I also feel that it is a missed opportunity to not have a thread dedicated to these articles as they raise and promote healthy conversation pertaining to Zelda. With that being said, thank you for clicking, Now Lets Begin.

*I just happen to start this whole thing with the longest Article in the series to date. Sorry to those "tl;drs' out there. Please just hear me out, I doubt they will all be this long.
How Should Non-linearity be Handled in a Zelda game? By Thomas Jacobs

In the last few years in gaming, linearity has become something of an ugly word: it is considered bad design to have a linear game and players absolutely need freedom because it is thought to be better than a linear experience by its very nature. Given the immense success of linear games such as The Last of Us this is proven to be incorrect, yet the call for nonlinear games exists. In games such as the Zelda series exploration is an important part, with plenty of hidden treasure, items and Pieces of Heart strewn about. During your explorations you run into dungeons and temples in some of the games, but if the dungeon either has an obstacle in front of it barring entry or even worse, you discover halfway into the dungeon that you lack the item you need to complete it. So how should the series handle linearity? Read more on this after the break!

First off, note that nonlinearity is not the same as an open world. Just because the world is big and you can go anywhere does not mean that you can do things in whatever order you want to. Wind Waker had a sizable overworld you could sail around in at leisure, but you still had to unlock the tools you need to access the next part of the plot. Twilight Princess, while being called one of the most linear games in the series still has an open world to explore.

But how do you handle nonlinearity? The first option would be to take The Legend of Zelda or A Link to the Past way of doing things: a big open world where all the dungeons are accessible right away and you need to figure out on your own what both the possible (regarding to items) and desirable order of completing them is. In for example A Link to the Past you could theoretically enter the Dark World, get the Hammer from the first dungeon, the Hookshot from the second, the Cane from the Sixth, take a detour for the Quake Medallion and rescue Zelda first. While kinda sweet from a story perspective this does meant that you’re doing things in far from an optimal way. Some people claim it’s better to complete Misery Mire before heading into the Ice Palace because the Cane of Somaria allows you to skip a rather annoying part of the Ice Palace.

Ocarina of Time works more or less the same. Here there is an optimal order of doing dungeons, but it is quite possible to deviate from it. Even early on, if you obtain the Bomb Bag you can go blow your way through the rocks preventing you from entering Zora’s Domain and entering Jabu Jabu. In the second part of the game however you are given a choice: you can go to the Forest Temple first (which is recommended by the game), OR you go to the Fire Temple first and then complete the Forest Temple. Or if you get your hands on the Bow you can also give getting to the Water Temple first a shot. After you complete your first dungeon you can go get the Lens of Truth which you can use to get to the Spirit Temple or the Shadow Temple, plus whatever other dungeons you still have to go.

This minor sequence breaking also appears in Majora’s Mask, where you are required to have certain objects to enter the next area of the game. Some of these items include dungeon items: the Bow and the various arrows. Because of the amount of items you find in the overworld and that you need to go into several large dungeons to get the item you need to skip to the next one, it is almost not worth it to sequence break as you might as well finish the dungeon you’re in.

But of course, the unconquered king of nonlinearity is A Link Between Worlds. Here you can buy and rent the traditional dungeon items and use them to do the dungeons in whatever order you wish. The upside is that the dungeons are tooled to the use of one specific item and you use it a lot here, which is somewhat limited in quite a few dungeons throughout the series where you get an upgrade instead of a useful tool. The downside however is that you are limited in what you can do with a dungeon because you cannot predict which items the player has on them unless you force them to collect everything in advance, undermining the nature of an open-ended world. This also makes a more story-driven game difficult to make, given the sheer number of different ways you can complete dungeons and how this affects the story.

So how do you solve this? Many games have the dungeons grouped and divided by some method that prevents a player from entering the next group before they completed the first. For example, in Wind Waker you have to have completed Dragon Roost Cavern and the Forbidden Woods before you can access the Tower of the Gods and the next pair of dungeons, the Earth Temple and the Wind Temple. Wind Waker did have something unique here: you could go to Dragon Roost Cavern or the Forbidden Woods as your first dungeon in the game, and you could go to either the Earth Temple of the Wind Temple before the other without you running into any trouble.

By expanding on such a formula interesting dungeons can be made. Players both have the freedom to choose from a set of dungeons, and after completing these and going through an event to get to the next group there is a mix of freedom for the player and controlling which items they have when reaching which group of dungeons. If such a thing was attempted the number of dungeons per group would have to be matched to the number of groups: for example three groups of three dungeons, or maybe three of four. The risk with this is that the player might feel they have to jump through hoops to get to the end, which is not a good thing.

An untried option so far is the Mega Man solution. In the Mega Man series (both the Classic and the X series) the player is presented with a number of stages for them to complete. These can be attempted in any order, but there is a preferable order of completing them. This is determined by the weapon that you obtain from the boss at the end of each stage, alongside the occasional tool you get during certain levels. In your first playthrough you will not be aware of this, committing to trial and error gameplay and dying a lot (the Classic series is especially known for being rather difficult). In subsequent playthroughs you might be more aware of what awaits you and choose from there.

The Legend of Zelda could try something like this. Have a set of dungeons available from the start that each can function as a first dungeon, each with their own item for Link to find and use. This item is then used against the boss as usual. But for an extra bonus, have this item be useful in a next dungeon as well without requiring the player to have it to complete it. Have the item be used for shortcuts, or for finding extra hearts/rupees/consumables/fairies/whatever.

Some of these options could also be combined of course. Have the extra item utility combine with possible sequence breaking, or combine the sequence breaking with the grouped dungeon system. Which option do you like the most and do you like to see in a Zelda game? Or perhaps you prefer the more linear structure? Please share your thoughts below!

 

[snakeoiltanker]

I am torn on this subject, as I like the the Idea of the Mega Man solution, but there is the issue of story progression involved, and if there were a solution to that; the Mega Man Solution (IMO) is the only way to go for those who want a truly non-linear Zelda Experience. The best "story" in games lately have came from Linear titles, as there is a great story there, and you are just a tool to push the character through the story. But like Mr. Jacobs said, we all want our freedom these days to do what we want in a video game, which I agree. But I also like a good story to keep me attached to the game.

Im Torn cuz while the Mega Man Solution sound great, The Idea of groups of dungeon being able to be played in any order you see fit, provides freedom for the play, while being able to keep a good story in tack. That is the issue. While games like Elder Scrolls allow you to do what ever you want when ever you want, there are no key Item in the game that you need to complete a Dungeon, Cavern, or Castle. So they do not have the problem of loosing substance in plot to the freedom of the player. While Zelda is known for its cool Items and Tools, and Dungeons requiring certain Tools to complete. This is why I like Thomas' Idea for Groups of dungeons like he cited Wind Waker of possessing. A Link Between Worlds gave you free roam, but the dungeon did loose substance due to the developer not knowing which Items/Tools you have. I will admit that ALBW did a good job at still letting you gain useful Items in the dungeons like the Master Ore, Tunics, Stamina Upgrade, and the infamous Hylian Shield. But the dungeons just seemed like a missed opportunity of something great. They all had great design, but were just not as in depth as they could be, due to being dedicated to one item. It would have just been better off to give you all the items at once, and made the dungeons use all sorts of combinations of items, as opposed to just one.

I hope you all took the time to read this, please join the discussion so we can get some steam behind these threads, so that I can get permission to put them in the World of Zelda sections.

 

[Dio]

Right well TLDR mate. I'm just kidding

My thoughts on non linearity is that people clamour for it when they actually enjoy the linear structure.
A bit more freedom I think would solve the problem. But to have everything accessible from the start is not a good idea.
You need that element of progression and that the game gets harder as you play it. Dungeons should be simple at the beginning but hard at the end of the game.
What I think would be pleasing for both linearists and non linearists. Is have an order for groups of dungeons. So say you have group 1 which consists of 3 basic dungeons. When you begin the game you can do any of the 3 in any order. You are advised on which to do first based on which is easier. Once that group is completed you'll be able to access another couple of dungeons that you can do in any order, once those are done it grants access to more dungeons.
I personally like the idea of finishing a dungeon group grants link a power up which allows him to fight enemies in areas he would previously have been killed easily in. This removes the need to put physical barriers in place which can be seen as an annoyance. If the player wants to go to a zone where they will be massacred by enemies far beyond them then they have the freedom to do it. They cant complain they were denied the opportunity.

 

[SavageWizzrobe]

I do prefer some non-linearity in Zelda, and that's because linearity can feel artificial (physical barriers in particular seem contrived), plus non-linearity can add some replay value to the game, as you have some paths that can be easier or harder than others. However, I do think the game needs some sort of progression for the sake of story and also not frustrating the player too much. The game should use subtle cues to guide the player toward the easiest path, but not restrict the very skilled players from taking the harder paths.
In particular, I really like how Ocarina of Time handled non-linearity, especially with the adult section of the game.

 

[snakeoiltanker]

From reading the replies here I am liking the groups of dungeons Idea a lot more, simply due too the feeling of Progression. There is a need for that, so the player feel like he/she is being rewarded in some way, as well as feel like you are getting better cuz of them throwing more difficult dungeons your way. As if to say "You think your good, then here try these dungeons on for size". to many game lately just want too hold you hand making it feel like the developer are questioning you intelligence or out right calling you stupid, Nintendo being the worst offender. So groups of dungeons i feel would be the best way to challenge your audience through progressing difficulty. Making the player feel powered or at least good about themselves.