Breath of the Wild Do you want every new zelda game to be open world?

[DarkestLink]

I think it's better that they don't honestly. An open world just doesn't compliment Zelda's dungeon progression and player evolution style. In addition, Zelda doesn't offer lore or any story material that drives players to explore the world. While I do greatly enjoy the style of progression Zelda offers, it really makes an open world offputting. I feel discouraged to do sidequests until I beat the game, knowing that I'm sure to stumble upon areas I simply can't complete because I lack the proper items. It is very frustrating to find yourself with a puzzle and unable to tell if you're stuck or missing an item, which leads me to avoid it.

There are ways around this, like Ravio's shop, but even with this, the exploration is still one of the weaker aspects of the game, and going so far out of their way to support an open world ended up deteriorating puzzle quality, which just isn't worth it. Unlike exploration, puzzles have been one of the series finer qualities since OoT.

Honestly, because they are trying to make this game open world, I fully expect it to be a flop compared to the other 3D titles. The puzzles will likely be of lower quality, the lack of solid progression will likely hurt combat as well, and ultimately these two great sacrifices will only be replaced by an open world that's just not fun to explore. Because of this poorer gameplay experience, I expect sales to suffer as well.

 

[Adventurer of Hyrule]

No, i love that the new one is, but the special ingredient in the franchise is variation.

 

[Farore's Chosen]

@DarkestLink -How does it not compliment Zelda's Dungeon progression? The first Zelda had two open overworlds and 18 unique dungeons with varying levels of difficulty, size and enemies appropriate to what the player could handle.

So it most certainly can and has before.

What killed ALBW's return to open overworld immersion was the fact that a good portion of the players had already played ALttP prior and knew where to go,.

 

[Dan]

No, i love that the new one is, but the special ingredient in the franchise is variation.

Yeah pretty much this. Open worlds have their advantages and disadvantages, if they didn't every game would be an over world!

 

[Adventurer of Hyrule]

Saying that though, SS felt like a regression after WW and TP

I find this line a little puzzling since TP was as linear in world progression as SS, and it had a smaller world on top of that.

 

[DarkestLink]

@DarkestLink -How does it not compliment Zelda's Dungeon progression? The first Zelda had two open overworlds and 18 unique dungeons with varying levels of difficulty, size and enemies appropriate to what the player could handle.

So it most certainly can and has before.

What killed ALBW's return to open overworld immersion was the fact that a good portion of the players had already played ALttP prior and knew where to go,.

It can have an open world, but the open world doesn't compliment a series that requires dungeon progression. For a game to have a good open world, it needs to remove the task list. It needs to create progression through true genuine exploration. You stumble on something, you follow the trail, you progress.

It works in a game like, say, Super Mario 64 because you aren't given set tasks. You're given a hint to a star, but you can after any star you want and progress any way you want. This is true exploration and it's fun. But it doesn't work for a game like Zelda that has a task list. Zelda's pseudo-exploration isn't really exploration. You aren't just wandering through the world, looking into things that interest you, and doing whatever you want...you're looking for your next objective, your next goal, because that's the only way to progress through the game. Having it hidden among piles of heart container quests isn't satisfying, it isn't fun. At best it's boring and tedious, at worst it's frustrating and agonizing.

 

[Farore's Chosen]

It can have an open world, but the open world doesn't compliment a series that requires dungeon progression. For a game to have a good open world, it needs to remove the task list. It needs to create progression through true genuine exploration. You stumble on something, you follow the trail, you progress.

It works in a game like, say, Super Mario 64 because you aren't given set tasks. You're given a hint to a star, but you can after any star you want and progress any way you want. This is true exploration and it's fun. But it doesn't work for a game like Zelda that has a task list. Zelda's pseudo-exploration isn't really exploration. You aren't just wandering through the world, looking into things that interest you, and doing whatever you want...you're looking for your next objective, your next goal, because that's the only way to progress through the game. Having it hidden among piles of heart container quests isn't satisfying, it isn't fun. At best it's boring and tedious, at worst it's frustrating and agonizing.

Actually yes, you are and I don't understand what your talking about saying you don't.

 

[Mipha]

Yes this would make the games a whole lot funner. More difficult. But funner.

 

[midlinkmobile]

I know someone said this same answer before but I do want to put my own little spin on it. Should all of the next Zelda games be open world? Depends on how well this game is when we finally can play it this or next holiday season. If Nintendo takes this push back of the release to their advantage it could do well. If they really work on this it can do well. I do have high hopes for this game. I really want to see what Nintendo can do in the open world genre-ish and Zelda is the perfect game to do it with. So if this game does as well as the hype and how it looks so far then yes Nintendo should make more open-world games which could help them in this fall back from their competitors. But if it falls short.......