• 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.

An open world with linear dungeons?

Joined
Feb 5, 2011
One of the Breath of the Wild's only complaints is the dungeons. Here are some of the major complaints I've seen:
There's so few of them.
They're all puzzle based, which isn't necessarily bad but that's all there is to them.
They look too similar and the aesthetic isn't very appealing to look at.
So few enemies.
Open, with no rooms that need keys, no key items and no mini-bosses.
A boss with too similar designs.

Admittedly, I like the whole moving them when you get the map, but that's hardly enough to justify everything else. Some might argue it's because the game is open-world and the dungeons wanted to be the same, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. Also, remember how A Link Between Worlds was a game where, after getting the Master Sword, you're free to go to any dungeons you choose to with at least one notable exception that required the Sand Rod. The dungeons themselves weren't open with going wherever you want, you still had some linear progression. Personally, while I like the open-world nature, I think that sometimes it's okay if we had some linearity in small doses. Look to the shrines for example, most of them are pretty linear and are a path that twists and turns like a dungeon from an older game.

Personally, I'm more eager for this to happen. The dungeons could at least be seen as a break from the open world when the player decides to enter them.

Anyone else agree?
 

Castle

Ch!ld0fV!si0n
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Location
Crisis? What Crisis?
Gender
Pan-decepticon-transdeliberate-selfidentifying-sodiumbased-extraexistential-temporal anomaly
Zelda's signature structure is the whole open go anywhere anytime overworld dichotomy with the structured themed dungeons. Take this dichotomy away and you take away yet another essential thing that makes a Zelda game a Zelda game.

Do dungeons have to be more structured, even to the point of being entirely linear? No. Even making them sprawling open spaces for Link to pour over isn't necessarily a bad idea, but they do have to have some sort of focus to their design, be it a theme, distinct instances of combat and puzzle solving or some relevance to the world or story. Level design across numerous games has shown us that even a game set indoors needn't be entirely linear. Check out Mark Brown's channel on Youtube. He has a series called Boss Keys where he breaks down the structure of dungeons from nearly every Zelda game. And TheGamingBritShow has a video called Road to the Rocket Launcher that highlights just one example of Residen't Evil's level design and structure.

My complaint against BotW is that while the overworld presents a compelling and downright fun sandbox playground, there isn't really any point in doing anything except for the fun of it. There's no real sense of progression or accomplishment, and the challenge can be incredibly janky. And when it comes to the dungeons they're just flat out lame. Uninspired, unchallenging, and almost entirely unstructured. Nintendo seemed to have a vague sense about what to do to address the issues with Zelda's overworld, reconsidered how to do it poorly, and completely neglected the other half of a Zelda game's world structure: the dungeons. So we ended up with a big fat bloated overworld with a bajillion things to do and no reason to do any of it, and dungeons so forgettable you can hardly notice them.
 

YIGAhim

Sole Survivor
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Location
Stomp
Gender
Male
Ocarina of Time was a Zelda game that was linear with a pretty open choice of dungeons. Linear with choices is a lot easier than open without choices. I like the idea of linear dungeons. I actually prefer it to some extent, but don't see it happening the traditional way.

A way I see it could go down is having the dungeons all be possible in any order, but only after having obtained an overworld item, and it could be any one.

For example, I obtain the hookshot in the overworld. I can now complete any of the dungeons using only the hookshot and whatever else I have.

It is like a dungeon with several different ways of doing it, allowing for MAXIMUM replay-ability. They could even make it so you don't need any items at all (But make that route significantly harder). The easiest route would of course be the one that linearly you would take (For example, the hookshot way would be the easiest way to pass the forest temple). I see great opportunity in this, not only for replay-ability, but also for speedrunning
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
So for years I've been advocating switching up the structure from dungeon to dungeon. This is one of the few things I thought was really awesome in Twilight Princess (having to assemble the Big Key in Goron Mines, having Yeta unlock areas for you in Snowpeak Ruins, etc.), and one of the many things I loved in The Minish Cap (Big Key fakeouts in some dungeons).

Nintendo swapping out the existing dungeon structure (Map -> Compass -> Dungeon Item -> Big Key -> Use it on the Boss) for a different one in Breath of the Wild was only an "improvement" insofar as it gave use a reprieve from a formula that's been mostly consistent over the last decade or so of Zelda games until the few years before its release. That doesn't mean it's not still the same problem. =P Actually, in Breath of the Wild the problem is worse because while dungeons in the other games consistently had a structure, the dungeons themselves had to be approached in wildly different ways at times, whereas the basic progression rules of the dungeons in BotW are basically the same.

Having consistent features in dungeons in a game is good, but the reality is that dungeons should stand out from one another. That's one of the Zelda series big strong suits -- variety -- and probably why it's my favorite game series even though "adventuring" isn't even something I usually look for in games. Every Zelda game has so many things you can do, so many different kinds of experiences and unique gameplay moments within. As much content as BotW has, at least in its dungeons it doesn't offer as much variety as other games.

Bottom line is: No. Do not have all linear dungeons. Do not have all open dungeons. Think about crafting unique areas, unique series of challenges, and contextualizing them withing an area. That's what a dungeon is. An area. A game where all the areas play the same is not a varied game, and variety is one of the big things that elevates Zelda.

Having linearity in bursts though is an amazing idea, and is honestly what BotW needed. Stick that in places in the world, during parts of game progression, and in certain dungeons, will make the entire game feel more dynamic, realistic, and will allow better-designed areas on top of the awesome player-choice that game was already good at.
 
Last edited:

Bowsette Plus-Ultra

wah
ZD Legend
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Location
Iowa
Gender
Lizard
Zelda's signature structure is the whole open go anywhere anytime overworld dichotomy with the structured themed dungeons. Take this dichotomy away and you take away yet another essential thing that makes a Zelda game a Zelda game.

But Zelda games stopped doing that years ago. Not since the original game has there been a go anywhere, do anything mentality. Modern Zelda especially has a problem with providing a world, but locking all the doors. Sometimes it's done with literal locks and sometimes companions just straight up won't let you explore.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
But Zelda games stopped doing that years ago. Not since the original game has there been a go anywhere, do anything mentality. Modern Zelda especially has a problem with providing a world, but locking all the doors. Sometimes it's done with literal locks and sometimes companions just straight up won't let you explore.
Yes, but many Zelda fans -- certainly many content writers, especially at the time -- were arguing more and more that this was distinctly "un-Zelda". You'll notice Nintendo eventually listened, and suddenly the games are doing as well as ever. =P
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
So for years I've been advocating switching up the structure from dungeon to dungeon. This is one of the few things I thought was really awesome in Twilight Princess (having to assemble the Big Key in Goron Mines, having Yeta unlock areas for you in Snowpeak Ruins, etc.), and one of the many things I loved in The Minish Cap (Big Key fakeouts in some dungeons).

Nintendo swapping out the existing dungeon structure (Map -> Compass -> Dungeon Item -> Big Key -> Use it on the Boss) for a different one in Breath of the Wild was only an "improvement" insofar as it gave use a reprieve from a formula that's been mostly consistent over the last decade or so of Zelda games until the few years before its release. That doesn't mean it's not still the same problem. =P Actually, in Breath of the Wild the problem is worse because while dungeons in the other games consistently had a structure, the dungeons themselves had to be approached in wildly different ways at times, whereas the basic progression rules of the dungeons in BotW are basically the same.

Having consistent features in dungeons in a game is good, but the reality is that dungeons should stand out from one another. That's one of the Zelda series big strong suits -- variety -- and probably why it's my favorite game series even though "adventuring" isn't even something I usually look for in games. Every Zelda game has so many things you can do, so many different kinds of experiences and unique gameplay moments within. As much content as BotW has, at least in its dungeons it doesn't offer as much variety as other games.

Bottom line is: No. Do not have all linear dungeons. Do not have all open dungeons. Think about crafting unique areas, unique series of challenges, and contextualizing them withing an area. That's what a dungeon is. An area. A game where all the areas play the same is not a varied game, and variety is one of the big things that elevates Zelda.

Having linearity in bursts though is an amazing idea, and is honestly what BotW needed. Stick that in places in the world, during parts of game progression, and in certain dungeons, will make the entire game feel more dynamic, realistic, and will allow better-designed areas on top of the awesome player-choice that game was already good at.

Another problem Breath of the Wild had was that there were too limited dungeons. If there were at least 2 more dungeons, this is something they could have done.

This has worked with Mario games before. Super Mario Galaxy 2 had both linear levels and open world levels.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Location
Michigan
My take is having something that is essentially dungeon tiers. Let's say the game has nine real and proper dungeons. Maybe there's one or two openers like Wind Waker's first foray into Forsake Fortress, but basically I'm thinking you can have dungeons scattered over the world. Use soft gating mechanics like the original game did to restrict the hardest ones but don't hard lock them away (except of course for maybe the last one). Additionally, there should be fun little mini-dungeons scattered around as well. As with Breath of the Wild, you use landmarks and points of interest to draw the player around. Easier encounters can be (for the most part) along roads and more easily traversed pathways while more difficult areas are farther from civilization, hidden away behind dangerous terrain and powerful or numerous enemies. When I think of mini-dungeons, I think of places like the ones you find in Twilight Princess. There were two or three of them that were just these forking paths and rooms that led deeper and deeper. The darkness mechanics of that game really made you feel like you were questing down and down into something dangerous. It felt like real and mysterious exploration. I loved them. But yeah, have a couple of those scattered about. You can keep neat items in some of them, things that make sense for where you find them. So maybe one mini-dungeon is some ancient old Wizzrobe's library or something, so it makes sense to find something like an Ice or Fire rod there. Additionally, use fun lore and world-based context clues to lead players to these places, or goad them into tracking them down. Make the story of the world something that lives and breathes and hides while begging to be uncovered.

But yeah, the tiers idea. So basically you'd have maybe 3/3/3 out of those nine dungeons: three easy ones, three difficult ones, and three very difficult ones. Certain types of puzzles can appear in each tier, so that you can have puzzle and combat concepts that DO evolve through the game but don't maybe rely on some super strict linear guidance. But find a way so that a player should ideally complete at least one dungeon in the low tier before moving up so they at least have a chance to see one or two iterations of a puzzle or enemy type before taking on a much more complicated version of that. Also, use context clues to indicate to the player how strong they should be in order to attempt a challenge. I've voiced this before, but a simple way to do this is to put a few enemies that are in a dungeon in the overworld, very close to the entrance. This does two things. One, if the player suddenly finds monsters they've never seen before, it's a good clue to keep a keen eye on the landscape because there could be a dungeon nearby. The other thing it does is indicate to them if they're strong enough to take on the dungeon. Seriously, if the sort-of-gatekeeper to a dungeon kicks the **** out of you, even if you kill it in the end, the player has the full choice to go "man, this is gonna be really tough, I'm not totally sure I'm ready," or maybe "hmmm, maybe I should pop back to town for some potions and whatnot, then come back. It's tough, but I believe in myself," or "no, this is too strong for me, I'll mark it on the map and come back after a few more Heart Containers, or maybe after I get some new weapon that makes this much easier. That was too much for me right now." Again, this IS NOT HARD. Zelda 1 did this with things like Lynels. Almost everyone who played that game likely found them and got their **** pushed in and thought "yeahno maybe later. I'll check the other side of the map a bit first."

Also, going back to what I said about items like the Fire or Ice rod... don't make items and weapons breakable. I don't want to say I hated the durability mechanic, I enjoyed it for what it was but I don't want it to return. Give me my old weapons system back. But also... don't be afraid to expand items and their uses. Don't do the Twilight Princess method of "one and done"ing items. Make them useful in the world for more than just a few gated Heart Pieces and progression spots. However, if you listened to the podcast on Combat, I brought up an interesting point with weapons. Basically, the designers weren't too afraid to make severely OP weapons like Thunderspears because they knew that you can only be that strong for so long before it breaks. So I get not wanting to give the player too many powerful toys to wreck shop with. My solution is that extra and special items start off really weak. Useful, but weak. Perhaps they serve some sort of utility, like forming little ice bridges, but their strength in combat can be experimental but should be of a power level below your standard weapons. However, through gathering items, information, contacts, materials, and perhaps finding ancient and arcane off-the-beaten-path locations, make it so these items can be upgraded. give them perhaps three levels of strength. And don't make it like BotW's armor system, where you're just schlepping back to the Fairy and going through this horrendously tedious menu to one-at-a-time your gear up to snuff. Make the locations themselves into mini-dungeons. Maybe you find some ancient fount of power and you can channel its energy into your Ice Rod, but to do it you first have to make your way through the Bokoblin camp that grew up around the thing... maybe they have been trying to make it work for their weapons and have been researching it to some extent. Heck, maybe they succeeded, and the boss has some cool attack or ability that sets it apart. Gives you a clue what your reward will be. Just... don't be afraid to integrate the background lore, the present story, the world, and the combat into one.

Anyway, it's hard to wrangle my thoughts right now. I think that's all I meant to say but I'll probably read this tomorrow and find it to be all disjointed and nonsensical...
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
I wouldn't even call the DB dungeons to be honest. Even calling them mini dungeons is generous. And while I want dungeons, an Open World Zelda with dungeons just isn't possible. The developers only have so many resources and in order to make the massive world, they had to make cuts somewhere else. Namely dungeons, which made up the meat of previous Zelda titles. And since the Open World style doesn't compliment dungeons anyway, there's no reason to crudely mix them together.

I'd rather see Nintendo branch the Open World ideas into a spin off where they aren't limited by Zelda tradition or just scrap the Open World formula altogether. It's not their strong suit and we're hardly on a shortage of Open World titles. To be honest, I don't think it works well with Zelda either. Even in the original, which is the most "open", the entire overworld is a series of hallways and the vast majority of gameplay is spent in the dungeons. Even if you 100% it, 2/3rds of the game is still dungeon crawling.

Hell, it's not like the original was exactly praised for its exploration either. I remember people constantly ****ting on it for its lack of direction and OCD methods of progression. The kindest comments I've heard to describe it are "archaic" and "outdated".
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
I wouldn't even call the DB dungeons to be honest. Even calling them mini dungeons is generous. And while I want dungeons, an Open World Zelda with dungeons just isn't possible. The developers only have so many resources and in order to make the massive world, they had to make cuts somewhere else. Namely dungeons, which made up the meat of previous Zelda titles. And since the Open World style doesn't compliment dungeons anyway, there's no reason to crudely mix them together.
.

I don't think this is true at all. The dungeons weren't cut because of any technical limitations. Other games have successfully used open world format with 'dungeons'.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
I don't think this is true at all. The dungeons weren't cut because of any technical limitations. Other games have successfully used open world format with 'dungeons'.

It's not technical limitations, it's mostly time. Dungeons take a massive amount of time. Arguably most of the development time. In the case of BOTW, that would have been the world itself. Developers only have so much time and space, which is why games need to have a focus. You can't have an RPG/Platformer/Open World/Action Adventure/FPS game for example because there wouldn't be enough time and resources available to do all aspects justice and it would just be a chaotic mess.
 

Castle

Ch!ld0fV!si0n
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Location
Crisis? What Crisis?
Gender
Pan-decepticon-transdeliberate-selfidentifying-sodiumbased-extraexistential-temporal anomaly
It's not technical limitations, it's mostly time. Dungeons take a massive amount of time. Arguably most of the development time. In the case of BOTW, that would have been the world itself. Developers only have so much time and space, which is why games need to have a focus. You can't have an RPG/Platformer/Open World/Action Adventure/FPS game for example because there wouldn't be enough time and resources available to do all aspects justice and it would just be a chaotic mess.

Then that would mean Nintendo has a time management issue. Lack of time given to a project is not an excuse for that product being lacking or inadequate. It certainly doesn't absolve the work of any criticism. Granted, the BotW project seems to have placed an overwhelming focus on overworld design compared to dungeon design. That could have been a creative direction, not even a project management decision.

Any project that cannot effectively realize the full scope of its design with all the resources it has available is just suffering from poor planing. If that's so then the project needs to rethink its limitations, not simply blow off a crucial design aspect because they're incapable of giving it the attention it requires.

But Nintendo is a multi billion dollar corporate entity that gave itself six years of development time. Time and money were clearly not limited on this project, so if the lack of dungeon design in BotW can be attributed to a management issue, it would have to be a personnel issue - namely the incompetence of.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Then that would mean Nintendo has a time management issue. Lack of time given to a project is not an excuse for that product being lacking or inadequate. It certainly doesn't absolve the work of any criticism. Granted, the BotW project seems to have placed an overwhelming focus on overworld design compared to dungeon design. That could have been a creative direction, not even a project management decision.

Any project that cannot effectively realize the full scope of its design with all the resources it has available is just suffering from poor planing. If that's so then the project needs to rethink its limitations, not simply blow off a crucial design aspect because they're incapable of giving it the attention it requires.

But Nintendo is a multi billion dollar corporate entity that gave itself six years of development time. Time and money were clearly not limited on this project, so if the lack of dungeon design in BotW can be attributed to a management issue, it would have to be a personnel issue - namely the incompetence of.

Based on what I've heard, there was a management issue. Aonuma removed all the old developers, replaced them with inexperienced new developers, couldn't answer their questions on Zelda conventions because he admitted he didn't understand them, would tell the developers to do their own thing, would start policing them if they did something he didn't like, and would tell them to go on their own again without giving them concrete direction and with no senior developers who could explain Zelda conventions and design.

That said, time, money, and space are always limited to some degree. I recall they said the reason they couldn't do caves is because the way they designed the overworld wouldn't allow it and in order to integrate caves they would have needed to overhaul and drastically shrink the overworld.
 

Cfrock

Keep it strong
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Location
Liverpool, England
Zelda's signature structure is the whole open go anywhere anytime overworld dichotomy with the structured themed dungeons. Take this dichotomy away and you take away yet another essential thing that makes a Zelda game a Zelda game.
This is what Zelda is to me: an overworld I can explore with secrets to find and characters to meet, and dungeons I can go into to face a specific challenge, test my skills or my puzzle-solving, and be rewarded with concrete progress towards the adventure's ultimate goal. BotW doesn't have dungeons. I'm with @DarkestLink on the point of not calling the Divine Beasts dungeons. To me, they were just bigger shrines. They all have the same aesthetic, they all revolve around the same concept, they're all short, they're all based around solving some 'one and gone' puzzles, and then they all conclude with a boss that looks like what you'd get if you asked a three-year-old to draw what they think lives under their bed. Without dungeons, BotW just isn't a Zelda game to me.

I don't think an open world and dungeons are mutually exclusive, though. There's no reason why a structured, self-contained dungeon can't exist as a location in an open world. With regard to the issue of development, it's possible time and poor management could prevent this (and seems like it did with BotW), but making the overworld smaller than BotW's, as well as beginning production with a clear design goal, would do wonders to solve that potential issue.

Also, @AncientPoe, I would like to play this game of yours. Where can I get a copy?
 

Spiritual Mask Salesman

CHIMer Dragonborn
Staff member
Comm. Coordinator
Site Staff
I don't see why an openworld game can't have linear dungeons. I mean with BotW there was alot of inventory management, and with weapons and shields breaking, I can see how a long dungeon could easiy become a massive pain to complete.

I think this could be easily solved if materials to replenish your inventory were incoperated within the dungeon's design, as well as cauldrons in the dungeons to brew potions, you can also have some weapon replacements that can be picked up in dungeons. Basically it would not be much different from the regular dungeon concept.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom