• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Did Zelda need to go 'open world'?

To an extent Zelda games have always been open, we've always had large areas to roam and even as far back as ALttP we could do dungeons in non-linear order.

With the open world movement in the video game medium it was only a matter of time before Zelda went all Skyrim (even though arguably Zelda should have done it first to maintain a leader status in the industry instead of regressing with Skward Sword) but did Zelda really need to follow suit?

We only had five 3D games between 1998 and 2011. BotW is only the sixth 3D Zelda game, had we had our fill of the more linear style of 3D games that came before BotW?

Should Zelda have gone open world and did it really need to?
 

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit
TP WW and OOT could have been open world and it wouldn't have made a difference to the games. It was just the consoles power preventing them from loading the whole thing at once. They pretty much were apart from that so you could say Zelda didnt NEED to go open world but it was almost there anyway. Apart from Skyward of course. To make that open world they would have needed to do more than remove loading screens.
 

Jirohnagi

Braava Braava
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Location
Soul Sanctum
Gender
Geosexual
Yes.

Linear gameplay was holding back the series. Something new, fresh and innovatine was required. Wellnot entirely new as Zelda 1 and 2 were open to a point. BotW is much more open though.

Only issue is BOTW took "open gameplay" to the extreme where there was barely any direction no story and just a pile of literal crap to collect, i think maybe if we do get another open world they should at least work on the story a bit more.

Overall zelda didn't have to go open because lineararity is a zelda staple but the series was getting stale, it did however need to have a larger world one you can explore and do things in.
 

Spiritual Mask Salesman

CHIMer Dragonborn
Staff member
Comm. Coordinator
Site Staff
It did need to go this route. If BotW hadn't been openworld the series would have been nearly written off, people would say it's status as turning out benchmark games was really over. Ideally it should have went openworld sooner like was pointed out in the OP. I feel like if we would have got an openworld Zelda instead of Skyward Sword things would be alot different. Skyrim still would have been a very popular game, but if we had an openworld Zelda around that time it probably would have been a slightly bigger deal than Skyrim.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
Only issue is BOTW took "open gameplay" to the extreme where there was barely any direction no story and just a pile of literal crap to collect,
That is a fault of the story or amount of loot to collect. Not of the world itself being open. An open world with a better story, more interesting loot and some more direction? Maybe that's what is needed.
 

Jirohnagi

Braava Braava
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Location
Soul Sanctum
Gender
Geosexual
That is a fault of the story or amount of loot to collect. Not of the world itself being open. An open world with a better story, more interesting loot and some more direction? Maybe that's what is needed.

Certainly more interesting things to do, the lack of it makes the world feel empty and worthless collectibles are never good, what was the point of having people chase after 900 korok seeds only to get a literal golden turd. if they'd left it at 450 it would've been fine. I think nintendo needs to take a look at what they include.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
people chase after 900 korok seeds only to get a literal golden turd.
I never thought people would do this but they did. It's really no different to Ocarina of Time. 100 Skultullas for what? 100 rupees as many times as you want. But at that point in the game there is nothing ineresting left to buy. Money is worthless at the end of most Zelda games.

These worthless prizes at the end of Zelda collectathon hunts have been an issue for decades. Nintendo does seriously need to deal with the issue.
 

Jirohnagi

Braava Braava
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Location
Soul Sanctum
Gender
Geosexual
I never thought people would do this but they did. It's really no different to Ocarina of Time. 100 Skultullas for what? 100 rupees as many times as you want. But at that point in the game there is nothing ineresting left to buy. Money is worthless at the end of most Zelda games.

These worthless prizes at the end of Zelda collectathon hunts have been an issue for decades. Nintendo does seriously need to deal with the issue.

Amen to that i mostly enjoyed getting the infinite cash in the likes of OOT because it meant i didn't have to farm bombs or arrows ever again but unfortuneately it always comes to late to be of practical purposes.

But BOTW really murdered the cake in terms of useless prizes, a crappy photo you can't look at, medals that give no bonus' and a golden turd. What really pisses me off is theres literally no reward for lynels the toughest foes in the game, did nintendo just not think anyone would slaughter them all?
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Location
Belgium
it was not necessary as the zelda way and formula worked well for me

on the other hand a welcome change for once (or twice) yes but then i would prefer them going back to the old way and formula

but it seems that out of what they say they would go further with the new way as the new standard from now on and that makes me kind of dubious in the slightely more negative way, for me it feels less Zelda-ish, it also has to do with linearity in some way, they should not throw it over board intirely and at least still keep in some degree

but also if BotW had multiple actual real dungeons the above mentioned things might bother me (far) less or maybe not at all (though less likely)
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
No. Zelda is a series that benefits greatly from linearity, that has a weak story, and whose 3D games have constantly been chastised for having a poor overworld.. This is a terrible match for Open Worlds. Zelda has always been linear, with the series becoming more linear as the series evolved. The original LoZ was a linear game in that the world itself was comprised of nothing but hallways. You could go out of order, but that was it.

As the series evolved and puzzles were included into dungeons, the games become more strictly linear with MM being the first game to completely removed any sense of non-linearity. Allowing dungeons to build on each other created a better experience. Exploration was done naturally by crafting an interesting world that people wanted to explore, even though Termina has the smallest and most linear 3D overworld of the series.

Open Worlds have four critical elements: Exploration, Freedom, the Overworld and Storytelling. Zelda doesn't excel in any of these. The player is not free. Link is very limited. He is the hero, he cannot attack people. He moves at a snail's pace (even in BOTW). He has a single main weapon. These limitations are used to challenge the player and present them with puzzles based off these limitations.

The story telling is weak, even in games like MM and TP where it's at its peak. It's simply not something Nintendo cares for.

3D Zelda has consistently been chastised for its poor overworld. And notice that the bigger and more open it is, the more hate it gets. Not counting BOTW, as far as how the overworlds rank from the least amount of hatred to the most, I'd say it's roughly: MM > OoT > TP > SS > tWW. And even in SS, the open sky gets a lot more flack than the linear surface.

Exploration is another area where Zelda has been chastised. Every "exploration segment" that has been introduced to us has not been received well by the playerbase. Triforce Hunt? Hated. Dowsing segments? Hated. Tears of Light? I personally liked it, but most people hate it. Even in the original, the biggest flaw people tend to see with it is the OCD "exploration" in bombing every single wall and burning every tree. The only time exploration was well received was when Nintendo wasn't pushing it. And that's in MM. In MM there is no exploration segment, people just wanted to explore because the world was interesting and not tediously large.

Zelda doesn't have any of the components that make a good Open World and instead thrives off of linearity (primarily for its puzzles). BOTW still doesn't have any of the core elements that make a good Open World. There's very little freedom. Link moves like he has hemorrhoids, can't choose a playstyle, can't make story choices, and can't do unheroic things. The little freedom you do have is the ability to go out of order, which doesn't mean much compared to other Open World titles. The story is even worse than the previous titles. The world is obnoxiously large, empty, and boring. It's the same as all the other boring worlds, but with the faults simply multiplied on a larger scale. Because of the boring overworld and the uninteresting store/lore, the exploration itself is tedious and unrewarding.

To be honest, you really do need all four of the core concepts if you want to make a decent Open World. And as long as Nintendo remains uninterested in developing a deeper story, I don't think the Open World genre is a good match for them. That said, even among Nintendo franchises, Zelda is the worst pick for Open World IMO. Every other franchise at least has some element that would excel in an Open World title or haven't tapped into 3D gaming and could potentially be reworked into an Open World.
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Location
Hyrule Castle
I prefer open world games, although some of my favorite games of all time are more linear. In terms of Zelda, open world is the first step to it being a good game. In the vast map of Hyrule and all it's regions to explore, who wants to be imprisoned in discovering just the storyline in a specific order? It sounds so boring. In Ocarina of Time, Navi would annoyingly tell you to go to Gerudo Valley but instead, you went fishing, and that was fun! The optional side quests, mini-games, hidden areas, people to discover, etc., it's what made so many Zelda games so successful.
 

Alita the Pun

Dmitri
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Location
Nintendo Memeverse
Gender
A Mellophone Player... Mellophonista?
I like games that are a little more linear. I get bored with games quickly unless there is something new and fun to do or something telling me where to go to progress the story. Maybe I'm not as big brained as others. I like to know my purpose in a game. Thats what always made the Zelda series so enjoyable for me. BotW was a fun adventure, but I wanted more direction.
 

YIGAhim

Sole Survivor
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Location
Stomp
Gender
Male
Yes.

Linear gameplay was holding back the series. Something new, fresh and innovatine was required. Wellnot entirely new as Zelda 1 and 2 were open to a point. BotW is much more open though.
If people want open world then they get Skyrim or something.

Linear was not exactly holding back Zelda, but to completely scrap any linearity was dumb.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom