General Zelda Just How Important is Scale To The Zelda Series?

[Justac00lguy]

A bigger game can sometimes be considered to be a better game, it's not exactly the case but a lot of gaming companies always want to expand and grow and I'm not just talking business-wise. Zelda has somewhat followed the trend but it hasn't exactly went all out as some people have wanted, the question is: does it really need to?

That's not just the topic here though, I want to talk about how important scale is to the series as a whole. The series started from an inspiration; Miyamoto's childhood adventures prompted him to create an adventure based game à la the original Legend of Zelda. Now the series has been exposed to many different in-game elements that have shaped how the series stands today, it's not all about the adventure now, but it's still an adventure-based game.

With adventure comes exploration, and while the series has lacked somewhat in effective exploration it's still tried to accomplish that feeling. So with a lot of fans craving bigger overworld, is it essential that the series needs to be bigger? I'm not necessarily saying it has to be bigger to increase exploration and whatnot but just how important is scale overall and in the series' future?

 

[Mercedes]

I think so. Not only does a game need to be big, but it needs to feel big. A game like Zelda needs to feel like this big, grand adventure or I just don't think they hit the spot.

The original Witcher game was massive for instance, lots of areas to explore and go to, but it was still lots of confined areas connected by straight paths and so, while it may have been quite big if you flattened it all out, it just didn't feel it. Whereas Skyrim did feel big! It was a grand adventure just riding across the world, you could see far off into the distance and know you could go there. Same with the Wind Waker. I think the idea of being thrown into this huge world just makes people want to explore it, it really sets the mood for an epic adventure and that feeling's a great thing. Not just running down corridor after corridor. That isn't an epic adventure, the type of thing I want Zelda to be. I feel it stifles the game a little bit.

So yeah, I think Zelda does need to be big, and feel big too. Give us huge open plains and dank forests, not just a straight path running through some woods. That isn't what I'm looking for.

 

[ihateghirahim]

I think the scale needs to match the ideas of the game. Certain ideas need them, and certain ones don't. For example:

The vast number of collectibles, bigger soundtrack, and general sense of epicness make TP need the scale. It's a game built around the mechanics of advanced riding combat, tracking scents, and long on-rails mini-games. The scale is adjusted to match mechanics that require large amounts of space.

WW was small scale in regard to land, but it was vast in scale. This goes with the theme of a nautical adventure and exploration. Vast areas of land would take up too much space and detracted from the aquatic theme of the game. The scale is adjusted to fit the theme.

 

[Ventus]

Huge games = better games as far as I'm concerned. This is Zelda. Bigger is better...just put some substance in that hugeness. ^^

 

[Mangachick14]

In my book, bigger doesn't always mean better. I'd rather a smaller, very detailed overworld to a larger, empty one. If there's nothing to find, all a bigger scale does is make it more tedious to get from point A to point B. So I'm going to say a large overworld is good, but only when properly utilized. Add in more things to find, more secrets and even more towns to explore. If not, I say don't bother making the overworld large. I don't find any fun or exploration in wandering around an expansive, desolate plain--just boredom.

 

[Awesomehylian]

I feel no desire for a skyrim/WoW/whatever type of overworld. I like being able to get places in a decent amount of time and I like my games to be engaging. If a game takes more than, say, 20 hours for me to play the first time through, it is highly unlikely that I will actually complete it that first time. I have to get curious again because generally after that amount of time I've seen most, if not all, of the game and there really isn't a lot that is going to be thrown at me that is completely new.

So, single player Zelda, no thank you. I like how it is now.

Multiplayer would be totally different. In a Zelda game with online dynamics, quests that could really only be done with a team, etc., then a larger overworld would be necessary. But I have very mixed feelings about a Zelda MMO, probably leaning toward the nay.

 

[RegalBryant]

The scale needs to match the mood of the game. For instance, what is probably the smallest scale 3D Zelda game was Majora's Mask. Compared to Wind Waker or TP, it feels downright claustrophobic. But that feel fits the game so, so well. It just wouldn't feel right if you were traversing huge areas.

 

[Random Person]

It's not so much as size of the overworld as it is the content. I'm not going to say that there's no such thing as "too small" because there is, especially in this day in age. The general complaint about any overworld is that it's too empty. Be it WW's sea, TP's field or SS's sky... the main complaints about these places is that they don't have enough content which makes the overworld seem like a Shadow of the Colossus overworld where it's just there so there's space between you and your objective.

So I don't think the series needs a giant overworld I think MM has the best 3D overworld despite how compact it is. You never feel you've completely explored everything because there's so many secrets. That's not to say a massive overworld couldn't help the series. But what we need are fulfilling secrets to explore. (Emphasis of fulfilling)

 

[Salem]

In my book, bigger doesn't always mean better. I'd rather a smaller, very detailed overworld to a larger, empty one. If there's nothing to find, all a bigger scale does is make it more tedious to get from point A to point B. So I'm going to say a large overworld is good, but only when properly utilized. Add in more things to find, more secrets and even more towns to explore. If not, I say don't bother making the overworld large. I don't find any fun or exploration in wandering around an expansive, desolate plain--just boredom.

Exactly that.

Dare I say, Zelda's overworld is too big? :O


Honestly, they should make the World's size fit the content they created for it, I have a feeling they listened to fans when they said "we want the world to be big" and Nintendo was like "we can do that ", and look how TP turned out.

Instead of asking them to make next Zelda to have a large overworld, we should ask them to have a lot of "content".

 

[Ventus]

Having a huge overworld with no actual content is not a bad thing inherently. Some Random Person mentioned the game Shadow of the Colossus, which is THE example of this. That game's overworld is ****ing huge, but also incredibly empty. Said emptiness is a part of the game, not a product of laziness or whatever excuse was made for TWW, TP, and SS. When you look at SotC's overworld, you're overwhelmed with an innate beauty that can't even be described. The Zelda series could adopt this, but it would need to put some serious stock into the visuals.