• 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.

General Zelda I Prefer Small Overworlds

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
I don't care how big an overworld is if it has convenient transportation. It could be 10x the size of the Great Sea and I'd be OK if it had a warp system as good as TP's that was introduced quickly enough.
 
My issue with overworlds isn't so much large-vs-small as much as it is compact-vs-sparse. Most of the larger overworlds are too sparse for my taste, there just isn't a lot to actually do except walk (or sail, as be the case) in these overworlds. On the other hand, making overworlds that might not be all that big as far as strict size goes but makes up for it with tons of enemies, obstacles, etc. in your way (ALttP, SS, etc.) makes things much more interesting in the long run.

This too is my general train of thought. Something else I want to add is how progression occurs in the overworld. A Link to the Past and A Link Between Worlds did an especially good job with this. Yes, some areas were regular overworld travel, but there were also many caves, connecting areas between segments (I.e. Skull Woods), and friendly NPCs willing to give a ride like in Turtle Rock. This helps each part of the journey feel distinct and the overall adventure less tedious.
 
I love big over worlds. I love the grand epic feeling you get when traveling through it. At least on 3D games. In the older 2D ones, and even the newer semi-3D ones like PH, ST and ALBW, small over worlds work beautifully. But in a big 3D adventure a large, grand and beautiful world to explore is the way to go imo.
 

Aewon

Emperor of the Flesh-Eating Replicators
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
I think small Overworlds has been limiting the Zelda series for far too long. Nintendo have had the technology to make large Overworlds since The Wind Waker, yet that's the only game that's done it. Some would argue that the Overworld is too empty. Well, of course it is! It's an ocean! Furthermore, claiming that the Zelda series doesn't have the content for a large Overworld is rediculous. In fact, they've never made a truly large Overworld, so none of us can know what they'd add. Actually, The Wind Waker is the closest the series comes at the moment to having a large Overworld, and it has more side-quests than any other Zelda game.

And what about non-linearity? The number one complaint about the recent games is that they're too linear, which is one reason why A Link Between Worlds was so well received. If you're like me and like exploring everywhere before progressing in the main quest then you'd likely explore almost the entire Overworld before entering the second dungeon if they make a non-linear game that has a small Overworld. Therefore, a non-linear game needs a large Overworld so that you don't get tired of it before you're even halfway through the game.

EDIT: Do you really want a repeat of the Faron Woods issue from Twilight Princess. First you head towards the Forest Temple to save Talo. Second time is to kill those bugs. Third is to get to the Forest Temple. Fourth is to get the Master Sword. Fifth is to get to the Temple of Time, which is at the exact same place. If the Overworld had been larger we wouldn't have had to return to that place so many times.
 
Last edited:

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Gender
Shewhale
I see this argument a lot about empty spaces, but honestly, I really don't see the problem and I'll explain below.

If a game has sufficient content, enough to keep the gamer engaged while traversing throughout the world, then what's the problem with having a prolonged empty space? If you literally fill up up every square metre with content then it becomes too much. You want a nice balance between areas with content and areas with a wide open area to explore and travel across. I like to call this spacial differentiation. The condensed areas with content should be places like provinces and towns, so essentially where content is needed. The less compact, and more free areas, will make up the bulk of the world but will ultimately serve as getting from point A to point B.

It's more realistic this way. If you think about it, exploration comes from finding something and where is the challenge in finding something in a condensed area? There is no fun and no sense of achievement in that. Overworlds should be open, they should be free to explore as well as engaging the player. Now by open areas I'm no referring to just a large barren wasteland that separates one place from another, but instead a wide open area that is difficult to explore, filled with hidden secrets, enemies etc. You want the journey to be thrilling; think Lord of the Rings. The main goal is to travel towards a single place, the group travel throughout Middle Earth just to reach their destination. They will spend a lot of their time just exploring the wide open landscape and will, from time to time, reach a specific area (maybe a tomb, Dungeon etc.) that will be filled with action sequences and the like. It's all about pacing and balance. If you have areas filled with content as well as large open areas then you will achieve that pacing and balance.

I also like to make reference to a high calibre game such as Shadow of the Colossus. This game is rather simple in concept but for its simplicity it's actually a masterpiece. It has a rather empty expansive overworld devoid of content with just the quest of hunting and killing giant colossi. Yet this game gave me one of the best feelings of discovery ever. Now I know Zelda Is a different beast, but the point is that a great sense of discovery and exploration doesn't need to be achieved by filling every corner with content. I will also reference Journey, but I felt SotC was more so a better comparison.

---

So overall I would love a large overworld, not anything too big but one large enough that it gives a sense of scale and grandeur to the adventure as well as the freedom to explore the land of Hyrule. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against small overworlds; I love some of the top down games in the series, I just feel there's more potential in a game that is larger in size.
 
Last edited:

Fig

The Altruist
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Location
Mishima Tower
Personally I love huge overworlds as it captures how broad the land of Hyrule really is. At the same time, I also love small overworlds because everything feels so close and connected with one another that it makes the game feel more lively. I really don't have a problem whether an overworld is small or large, but rather how much content there is packed into the overworld. You can have a huge overworld but have nothing in it (I'm looking at you Twilight Princess), or you can a small overworld but filled with content. I don't see why it wouldn't be hard to have a large overworld and be filled with a huge amount of content. That's my take on the matter and I'm sure others wouldn't mind to see a large overworld be filled with a lot of content to make exploration enjoyable rather than trying to find something when there was nothing to find in the first place.
 
JC brings up a good point about the game's atmosphere. Even if a part of the overworld doesn't serve a specific gameplay purpose, it can be used to elicit a specific emotion or reaction from the player. While nearly area in Skyward Sword unfolded like a dungeon with specific obstacles to complete to get from one point to another, the Sealed Grounds was clearly intended only as a battle arena and a stark contrast to the overall lighter and more whimsical areas around it.

People complain a lot about Twilight Princess having a lot of unused territory; however, this travelling helped to convey the game's grandeur and twilight covered firmament. Scenes like this are often more powerful and effective at conveying a specific message than dialogue. When The Last of Us released, many people stopped to admire the game from a still standpoint taking in how technically advanced and detailed the environment was. Visual messages like this allowing players to gaze upon the world from the perspective of their choice and take in their surroundings are a hallmark of videogames and help differentiate them from other visual mediums like movies.

With future expansive overworlds, Nintendo needs to match this visual acuity and sight seeing with exploration. If Aonuma's words are to be taken at face value and A Link Between Worlds are any indication, Zelda Wii U will be a marriage of the overworld secrets in games like A Link to the Past with the scope of Twilight Princess and beyond. The franchise has been struggling with its identity lately and one need only look at Skyrim to see that a larger, more complex adventure will keep fans interested farther into the future. Zelda should fulfill the fantasy most people seek in contemporary adventure games by looking at contemporary industry success and its own unique factors to redefine why the series has been a cornerstone of the industry for more than 25 years.
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
I think small Overworlds has been limiting the Zelda series for far too long. Nintendo have had the technology to make large Overworlds since The Wind Waker, yet that's the only game that's done it. Some would argue that the Overworld is too empty. Well, of course it is! It's an ocean!
Maybe that's the problem, the fact that it is an ocean. Also just because it's an ocean thats no excuse to make up spend far more time than necessary just travelling from one island to another, they couldn't merged most of the islands to become fewer but bigger islands, there the time spent travelling when have been reduced. Also the fast sailing wasn't possible in the GCN version, there were technical issues or something.

Furthermore, claiming that the Zelda series doesn't have the content for a large Overworld is rediculous. In fact, they've never made a truly large Overworld, so none of us can know what they'd add. Actually, The Wind Waker is the closest the series comes at the moment to having a large Overworld, and it has more side-quests than any other Zelda game.[/QUOTE]I was thinking of the maximum possible amount of collectable stuff from previous Zelda games, there were heart pieces, maybe some hidden items, trade quests.

And there were some items that only appeared in 1 or 2 games like masks or keystones from TMC insects from TP. there were the figurine quest fro WW.

I argue that most of the collectables don't do anything, imagine if TP was filled up with these things? Really does anyone want that?

And what about non-linearity? The number one complaint about the recent games is that they're too linear, which is one reason why A Link Between Worlds was so well received. If you're like me and like exploring everywhere before progressing in the main quest then you'd likely explore almost the entire Overworld before entering the second dungeon if they make a non-linear game that has a small Overworld. Therefore, a non-linear game needs a large Overworld so that you don't get tired of it before you're even halfway through the game.
I wants non-linearity but I don't think that's relevant to the size of an overworld.

Do you really want a repeat of the Faron Woods issue from Twilight Princess. First you head towards the Forest Temple to save Talo. Second time is to kill those bugs. Third is to get to the Forest Temple. Fourth is to get the Master Sword. Fifth is to get to the Temple of Time, which is at the exact same place. If the Overworld had been larger we wouldn't have had to return to that place so many times.
No, TP's overworld was too large they could have relegated Faron Woods' other quests to other areas but they choose to make the world empty instead, so no I don't think a small over world has a lot to do with repeating the same area over and over again.

If a game has sufficient content, enough to keep the gamer engaged while traversing throughout the world, then what's the problem with having a prolonged empty space? If you literally fill up up every square metre with content then it becomes too much. You want a nice balance between areas with content and areas with a wide open area to explore and travel across. I like to call this spacial differentiation. The condensed areas with content should be places like provinces and towns, so essentially where content is needed. The less compact, and more free areas, will make up the bulk of the world but will ultimately serve as getting from point A to point B.
The problem with prolonged empty space is the travelling from one area filled with content to another, that's exactly my problem, why is it too long? Even if I just want to explore I don't think having a prolonged empty space is a good idea either, it would still take too long to explore everything.

It's more realistic this way. If you think about it, exploration comes from finding something and where is the challenge in finding something in a condensed area? There is no fun and no sense of achievement in that. Overworlds should be open, they should be free to explore as well as engaging the player. Now by open areas I'm no referring to just a large barren wasteland that separates one place from another, but instead a wide open area that is difficult to explore, filled with hidden secrets, enemies etc. You want the journey to be thrilling
I argue that shooting for realism is detrimental to a lot of games but that's a different argument.

As for a wide open area, well does it have to be as big as any of TP's field areas?

think Lord of the Rings. The main goal is to travel towards a single place, the group travel throughout Middle Earth just to reach their destination. They will spend a lot of their time just exploring the wide open landscape and will, from time to time, reach a specific area (maybe a tomb, Dungeon etc.) that will be filled with action sequences and the like. It's all about pacing and balance. If you have areas filled with content as well as large open areas then you will achieve that pacing and balance.
I'm not argueing that there should be zero empty space, I argue there should be minimum empty space, perhaps a lot less than the what we got in games like OoT, WW and TP.

I also like to make reference to a high calibre game such as Shadow of the Colossus. This game is rather simple in concept but for its simplicity it's actually a masterpiece. It has a rather empty expansive overworld devoid of content with just the quest of hunting and killing giant colossi. Yet this game gave me one of the best feelings of discovery ever. Now I know Zelda Is a different beast, but the point is that a great sense of discovery and exploration doesn't need to be achieved by filling every corner with content. I will also reference Journey, but I felt SotC was more so a better comparison.
I haven't played it so I dunno.

---

So overall I would love a large overworld, not anything too big but one large enough that it gives a sense of scale and grandeur to the adventure as well as the freedom to explore the land of Hyrule. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against small overworlds; I love some of the top down games in the series, I just feel there's more potential in a game that is larger in size.

I was reading some of the Iwata asks inteveiews. I don't recall who but someone said that the overworld designers of TP made it too big and the content makers couldn't keep up with it, that's part of why they tried to make SS' world dense(except for the sky) rather than big, even though it's not small by any means.

My point is that overworld need not be bigger than they need to.
 

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Gender
Shewhale
Salem;865040The problem with prolonged empty space is the travelling from one area filled with content to another said:
It's all about the journey. The journey should be an experience and not a simple transition from one province to the next. Exploration, by its definition, is the discovery and exploring of an unfamiliar area. Of course this doesn't really relate to size, but small spaces require little exploration as everything is in front of your very eyes - the sense of discovery is gone. This is pretty much Skyward Sword summed up, every province is filled with content that everywhere you look there's something there. There were no real big empty space, which gave the surface overworld a claustrophobic atmosphere and there was little to be found, or should I phrase it, little effort into finding anything as it was in front of you.

If you have large space of landscape then there the sense of discovery when you find something is much more satisfying and you can make the task of hidden treasures, hidden spots, specifc locations even harder to discover as you have to traverse the landscape. Plus I'm not speaking of one plain flat area as I think that's what you're interpreting it as. I'm simply talking a landscape devoid of any real dense population. That doesn't mean it's necessarily empty, but just more so open.

Sroa Link said:
I argue that shooting for realism is detrimental to a lot of games but that's a different argument.

As for a wide open area, well does it have to be as big as any of TP's field areas?
On the topic of Twilight Princess anyway. Yeah I do see some of the arguments against its overworld, but it has the template of what is love to see in terms of openness and scale. Plus it's not exactly all that empty. I remember there being a lot of enemies, treasure chests, hidden passages/caves, golden bugs, hidden poe souls etc. A realistic landscape isn't one big cluster****, there will be open and dense areas of land and this is vital to creating a diverse overworld.

Sroa Link said:
I'm not argueing that there should be zero empty space, I argue there should be minimum empty space, perhaps a lot less than the what we got in games like OoT, WW and TP.
Ocarina of Time Is the perfect example of a 3D title with little space in between provinces, towns etc. Sure it's somewhat bigger than Termina in terms of open space, but the journey across Hyrule Field takes under a minute, so not really a journey nor a big central overworld in my eyes. Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are good examples though. Both with a lot of empty, open areas and dense locations to mix it up. That sense of traversing the world is a feeling of true exploration that is hardly captured in the series. That sense of discovery of a new island on the horizon in TWW Is still one that remains in my memory. Albeit sometimes it was a chore, this can be fixed. You simply add more to the exploration - you make the journey more engaging.
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
It's all about the journey. The journey should be an experience and not a simple transition from one province to the next. Exploration, by its definition, is the discovery and exploring of an unfamiliar area. Of course this doesn't really relate to size, but small spaces require little exploration as everything is in front of your very eyes - the sense of discovery is gone. This is pretty much Skyward Sword summed up, every province is filled with content that everywhere you look there's something there. There were no real big empty space, which gave the surface overworld a claustrophobic atmosphere and there was little to be found, or should I phrase it, little effort into finding anything as it was in front of you.

Except with how dense the surface portions were, there was inherently more effort required in searching for things than in most other modern Zeldas. In the GameCube games, especially Twilight Princess, all you ever really have to do is waltz right up to anything and everything because there's nothing really there to hide it. It was never anything more than empty space followed by small dot of content. Skyward Sword, while very much a linear game, brought back the requirement of having to scour landscapes to find a large amount of the extra content that hadn't been seen in a console Zelda since Majora's Mask (not to mention a Zelda game in general since The Minish Cap) due to the amount of obstacles & terrain hazards involved in the travel.

Believe it or not, SS's provinces aren't any smaller than TP's. It may not seem this way at a glance, but that's simply because SS's have a much larger amount of density. Just compare this to this. See how barren TP's terrain is? That's how it is the majority of the time. Now, at the same time, see how active SS's terrain is? That's how it is the majority of the time. But, in addition, if you look at those two images closer, you should notice that their sizes aren't any different. And, no, it's not that there's some of TP's not being shown off. There's a tad bit extra to the left of East Hyrule Field, but that's just it -- a tad bit. That's pretty much the entirety of the province in the image.

Now, with all that said, in which of these two overworlds would it take more effort to find all the secrets? Hell, which of the two is bound to have more secrets, at that. The answer is clearly Lanayru Desert of SS.

If you have large space of landscape then there the sense of discovery when you find something is much more satisfying and you can make the task of hidden treasures, hidden spots, specifc locations even harder to discover as you have to traverse the landscape. Plus I'm not speaking of one plain flat area as I think that's what you're interpreting it as. I'm simply talking a landscape devoid of any real dense population. That doesn't mean it's necessarily empty, but just more so open.

"One flat plain" is pretty much what the GCN Zeldas' overworlds lived and died by. Again, all you ever had to do was waltz up to things with basically no hassle. Granted, TWW has a pretty respectable amount of exploration involved in the process, but TP decidedly does not. Yes, it has relatively large sections, but you're set on a solitary course the entirety of the game with very little wiggle room despite this. You can't go anywhere off the beaten path until the game says otherwise. It also has an absurd amount of hallways, especially in-between the different provinces. Every transitional section in the game is a giant bottleneck, which limits freedom and exploration by default. Combine that with the restrictive structure of the game, and... well, you have one hell of an intensely linear game.

On the topic of Twilight Princess anyway. Yeah I do see some of the arguments against its overworld, but it has the template of what is love to see in terms of openness and scale. Plus it's not exactly all that empty. I remember there being a lot of enemies, treasure chests, hidden passages/caves, golden bugs, hidden poe souls etc.

TP never really has any dense areas, though -- not outside of Snowpeak, anyway (and even then, there are much denser areas in the series). There's always empty space in an attempt to make the world seem more open than it actually is. There is a sizable amount of content to be found, but it's all so far spread out due to the terrain being too large for its own good. It follows the mentality of "bigger is better", which is a fallacy, as there always needs to be an appropriate amount of content to justify the size of an area in a game.

To be fair, though, SS suffers from the same problem with the Sky.

A realistic landscape isn't one big cluster****, there will be open and dense areas of land and this is vital to creating a diverse overworld.

Which, again, is something the GCN games never have. Really, the only 3D Zelda games that do are MM and SS. I think it could reasonably argued that SS leaned too much towards the density side of things regarding is surface portions -- and, honestly, I'd agree with that assessment -- but it still mixed it up a pretty fair amount, especially given the game's overarching linearity.

Ocarina of Time Is the perfect example of a 3D title with little space in between provinces, towns etc.

It's a pretty decent example for sure, but it's nowhere near as bad about it as the GCN titles.
 

LilyPadGeek

Some Weird Person
Joined
Apr 13, 2014
Location
Middle Earth
I think large overworlds could be pretty cool actually. However, for a land as mystical and "old-timey" as Hyrule there will be a lot of fields. Not saying there won't be trees and caves and such, but still. A LOT of field. If there would be a rather large overworld though, I'd want a thing to ride such as Epona. I really did like Epona in OOT. :ricky: Also Ricky because there is no Epona emotion.
 

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Gender
Shewhale
Except with how dense the surface portions were, there was inherently more effort required in searching for things than in most other modern Zeldas. In the GameCube games, especially Twilight Princess, all you ever really have to do is waltz right up to anything and everything because there's nothing really there to hide it. It was never anything more than empty space followed by small dot of content. Skyward Sword, while very much a linear game, brought back the requirement of having to scour landscapes to find a large amount of the extra content that hadn't been seen in a console Zelda since Majora's Mask (not to mention a Zelda game in general since The Minish Cap) due to the amount of obstacles & terrain hazards involved in the travel.
Well to me, the art of discovery comes from true searching and scouring. Skyward Sword's surface proportions were heavily limited due to the ratio of land mass to content. They were very compact--large? yes--but compact nonetheless. Everything you had to find, whether it be those fetch quests, Goddess Cubes or your objective, it was all rather in front of you (a few feet literally). There was no deviation or separate expedition that needed to be taken out be the player as 90% of the time everything was pretty much there. I can only go from my one personal experience and in Skyward Sword, the task of completing the game 100% was all rather straightforward and could be done in tandem with the main with little effort. While in The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, such quests required additional exploration to complete set quests. All of this forms the beauty of exploration and additional discovery beyond the main linear quest design.

JuicieJ said:
Believe it or not, SS's provinces aren't any smaller than TP's. It may not seem this way at a glance, but that's simply because SS's have a much larger amount of density. Just compare this to this. See how barren TP's terrain is? That's how it is the majority of the time. Now, at the same times, see how active SS's terrain is? That's how it is the majority of the time. But, at the same time, if you look at those two images closer, you should notice that their sizes aren't any different. And, no, it's not that there's some of TP's not being shown off. There's a tad bit extra to the left of East Hyrule Field, but that's just it -- a tad bit. That's pretty much the entirety of the province in the image.
Well that wasn't really my point.

In regards to Skyward Sword, it was the density of each of the areas which I wasn't fond of. I loved the idea of having an area full of content, but I also love diversity. SS's biggest overworld problem is that it only had provinces (well it had the sky, but that's disconnected). I have no problem with provinces being full of content as I said that above; however the space in between should be the journey. This couldn't be achieved due to design of the overworld itself as it had no space in between. It was literally like having Death Mountain, Lake Hylia and Faron Woods (all from TP) being squashed together. The Sky, a separate disjointed area of navigation, served this purpose. Although the Sky had no real realistic feeling of discovery and adventure due it's lackluster design and, the biggest point, it was disconnected form the surface. The fact that it was disconnected really took away from the natural sense of progression from exploration. You simply exit the surface via a Bird Statue, travel to the next portal, and enter the next province. Of course, when looking at this briefly, you can relate it to any overworld, but the simple fact remains, the Sky and the Surface aren't connected which ultimately hurt that feeling in my opinion.

JuicieJ said:
"One flat plain" is pretty much what the GCN Zeldas' overworlds lived and died by. Again, all you ever had to do was waltz up to things with basically no hassle. Granted, TWW has a pretty respectable amount of exploration involved in the process, but TP decidedly does not. Yes, it has relatively large sections, but you're set on a solitary course the entirety of the game with very little wiggle room despite this. You can't go anywhere off the beaten path until the game says otherwise. It also has an absurd amount of hallways, especially in-between the different provinces. Every transitional section in the game is a giant bottleneck, which limits freedom and exploration by default. Combine that with the restrictive structure of the game, and... well, you have one hell of an intensely linear game.
The hallways are mainly transition points between a province/town and the main central overworld, so they don't really bother me as they don't take up the bulk of the overworld. The sheer openness of the landscape is where the feeling of discovery comes from. While it's by no means perfect, it's a start nonetheless. It's not true freedom but it gives you that sense of grandeur that Hyrule has never captured before. Most of the other games include a smaller Hyrule packed with content, well more so a squeezed overworld. This create a very claustrophobic atmosphere and the only way exploration comes into play is by encountering puzzles that halt Link's path. A journey creates that feeling of a discovery ever so sweeter. Having that open landscape connecting each province is just more natural and allows room for more content. If you're exploring an area where everything is just there its not really a journey. Of you have a large landscape, in which to traverse, then you have an actual journey. In Twilight Princess You can follow the progression of the story, but you can also venture off from your main task to do other things, such is where that slight element of freedom comes into play. With no open space to actually explore, the room for additional exploration is heavily limited.

JuicieJ said:
TP never really has any dense areas, though -- not outside of Snowpeak, anyway (and even then, there are much denser areas in the series). There's always empty space in an attempt to make the world seem more open than it actually is. There is a sizable amount of content to be found, but it's all so far spread out due to the terrain being too large for its own good. It follows the mentality of "bigger is better", which is a fallacy, as there always needs to be an appropriate amount of content to justify the size of an area in a game.
I think the tone Twilight Princess was going for was a more barren Hyrule, as if there was a tragic event a few decades before the game itself. I know this doesn't necessarily explain why it can't have dense areas, but that tone of desolation and isolation really made the game unique in my eyes, as if there was something beyond the game itself. In order to achieve that feeling you essentially have to create areas which aren't packed to the brim with content. (kind of off topic, but that's just my view of why the land was like that).

Though I have said this before, I would like a Twilight Princess-like overworld (in relation to its scale and openness) with the combination of Skyward Sword's content and puzzle filled provinces.

JuicieJ said:
Which, again, is something the GCN games never have. Really, the only 3D Zelda games that do are MM and SS. I think it could reasonably argued that SS leaned too much towards the density side of things regarding is surface portions -- and, honestly, I'd agree with that assessment -- but it still mixed it up a pretty fair amount, especially given the game's overarching linearity.
Well maybe Skyward Sword with the Sky, but MM was a very condensed overworld. Don't get me wrong, I do love Majora's Mask and Termina, I'm just not sold on the idea of four provinces and the central hub being within a few seconds of one another. It definitely allows for a faster paced game with no real chore of a journey (like the Great Sea sometimes had) but Nintendo can counter that.

I like to think of some open world RPGs when thinking about this. Of course I know they're very much different, and a Zelda game should never really be that open, but I still feel they do nail the diversity of open and compact areas. If you take a game like Fallout 3,you have this huge barren wasteland with no real content in its mass emptiness. Then you have a variety of locations, both large and small in size to give it that diversity. If a Zelda game can somehow match that great balance then exploration--even in empty areas--would be enjoyable.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom