lol sex joke
Moving on, the question at hand is a simple one; does the size of a videogame matter to you? Size referring to just the scale of the explorable game world.
For me, I do like big games, and it does actually matter to me. It's not a 100% way to make a good game, and it's arguably way harder to fill a vast open-world with sufficient content to entertain the player and therefore much easier to disappoint, but if given the option I'd always take the bigger world that I can freely explore over perhaps a more intricate but smaller game. I love exploration in videogames and I especially like a world to feel organic and living, and I think open-world games have, and always will, achieve that well. It's why I was apprehensive but a little excited about Zelda U's move to what appears to be a much bigger open-world setting; apprehensive because, as said above, it's easier to disappoint if you make a bad over world with not much to do, but excited because, if they pull it off, I can't wait to explore it!
It's why I've been very excited for titles such as Witcher 3 too, which seems to be a game that, though it has a huge open-world, is not sacrificing the quality of the world and story which many open-world games have often done. Zelda U may very well be the same, which would be just the best thing that could happen! A game's primary design focal point does of course come into play too. Some games wouldn't work open-world, or perhaps just need a creative mind to work out how it could, whereas other games absolutely lend themselves to an open-world, fantasy epics especially.
How about you all?
Moving on, the question at hand is a simple one; does the size of a videogame matter to you? Size referring to just the scale of the explorable game world.
For me, I do like big games, and it does actually matter to me. It's not a 100% way to make a good game, and it's arguably way harder to fill a vast open-world with sufficient content to entertain the player and therefore much easier to disappoint, but if given the option I'd always take the bigger world that I can freely explore over perhaps a more intricate but smaller game. I love exploration in videogames and I especially like a world to feel organic and living, and I think open-world games have, and always will, achieve that well. It's why I was apprehensive but a little excited about Zelda U's move to what appears to be a much bigger open-world setting; apprehensive because, as said above, it's easier to disappoint if you make a bad over world with not much to do, but excited because, if they pull it off, I can't wait to explore it!
It's why I've been very excited for titles such as Witcher 3 too, which seems to be a game that, though it has a huge open-world, is not sacrificing the quality of the world and story which many open-world games have often done. Zelda U may very well be the same, which would be just the best thing that could happen! A game's primary design focal point does of course come into play too. Some games wouldn't work open-world, or perhaps just need a creative mind to work out how it could, whereas other games absolutely lend themselves to an open-world, fantasy epics especially.
How about you all?
Last edited: