Breath of the Wild "Rethink the Conventions of Zelda"

[zeldahuman]

I think that it's great that Nintendo is taking a step back into the direction of Zelda's roots and past gameplay styles. I'm especially glad that they're planning to bring back non-linearity; this is something that I've always loved about the Zelda franchise and was disappointed to see it get dropped in more recent titles.

Moreover, in regards to the co-op notion... I doubt that Aonuma has any plans for full on Four Swords-esque co-op. I think, rather, they're going to implement it similarly to, ironically enough, the Tingle Tuner from Wind Waker. I think the idea of Drop-In/Drop-Out co-op styled gameplay would be most ideal. Perhaps having secrets that could be detected by some sort of other player, should they choose to connect via the GamePad. Or, perhaps they're going to use this "co-op" idea to have some sort of online market/shop-place, where you could exchange treasures with other people.

I don't know, but I do know that Wind Waker HD looks GORGEOUS! And I'm confident now that Zelda WiiU will shape up into an amazing game... perhaps the most amazing Zelda game to date? Perhaps it'll be the game everyone expect Skyward Sword to be.

 

[Vaati101]

What about it has improved the series? All it's accomplished is forcing us to follow a straight path with little to no wiggle room.

I generally didn't Like the original Zelda because it was too non-linear. Linearity actually helped progression and made Zelda more stable I think. I'd rather follow a set path then just be plonked in the middle of Hyrule field and be expected to explore with little or no help. Linearity doesn't really effect game much which is why I don't quite understand the hate towards it, but without it you probably wouldn't get anywhere in the game.

A Link to the past and Ocarina of Time are brilliant Example of what a Zelda Game Should be like. They tell you what to do and recommend you go to the first Temple/dungeon, but after that you are free to choose where you will go next respectfully with some visual aid of the location of the Temples. With the Legend of Zelda, you finish the first temple and scratch your head thinking..."Now where do I go?" I don't want to do that in Zelda Wii U, I'd rather have some idea of where to go next, not just explore and hope for the best. Linearity is beneficial in Zelda and although it went over board in recent titles, it shouldn't be completely removed.

 

[DarkestLink]

What about it has improved the series? All it's accomplished is forcing us to follow a straight path with little to no wiggle room.

Linearity allows the developers to build off content. Rather than restrict an item to one dungeon and never use it again, linearity allows developers to use items in different dungeon scenarios and even think of ways items can be used in conjunction with each other. Linearity is also very important if you want a decent story that the modern Zelda offers. In Nintendo's current casual-friendly day in age, linearity is more important than ever as it gives Nintendo room to add difficulty as the game goes on.

Non-linearity has nothing to offer except more work for the developers. Doing dungeons in a different order offers nothing for the game experience except for some awkward gameplay and continuity.

 

[Dukusword]

Open world, non linear Zelda is what I've been dreaming for, for Wii U

 

[JuicieJ]

Linearity needs to be removed for at least one more major zelda game. In Skyward Sword, we lost the ability to explore the whole world, bit by bit, at our choosing. That was what made OoT awesome. It was even cooler when I found out no everyone did the Spirit Temple before the Shadow Temple. Non-Linearity will give us the unlimited exploration and adventure we got in the older games. An explorer game could rejuvenate the franchise. Remove all boundaries and let the temples flow.

Ocarina of Time isn't really Zelda's best example of non-linearity. If it weren't for the option to complete some of the dungeons out of order, it would actually be one of the most linear Zelda games, and probably more linear than Skyward Sword. OoT's overworld has a naked central hub with branch-offs that are nothing but hallways. There's not really any kind of open-ended & dense exploration like you would see in A Link to the Past or The Minish Cap.

I generally didn't Like the original Zelda because it was too non-linear. Linearity actually helped progression and made Zelda more stable I think. I'd rather follow a set path then just be plonked in the middle of Hyrule field and be expected to explore with little or no help. Linearity doesn't really effect game much which is why I don't quite understand the hate towards it, but without it you probably wouldn't get anywhere in the game.

A Link to the past and Ocarina of Time are brilliant Example of what a Zelda Game Should be like. They tell you what to do and recommend you go to the first Temple/dungeon, but after that you are free to choose where you will go next respectfully with some visual aid of the location of the Temples. With the Legend of Zelda, you finish the first temple and scratch your head thinking..."Now where do I go?" I don't want to do that in Zelda Wii U, I'd rather have some idea of where to go next, not just explore and hope for the best. Linearity is beneficial in Zelda and although it went over board in recent titles, it shouldn't be completely removed.

A Link to the Past is always what I'm referring to when discussing non-linearity in Zelda, so...

Linearity allows the developers to build off content. Rather than restrict an item to one dungeon and never use it again, linearity allows developers to use items in different dungeon scenarios and even think of ways items can be used in conjunction with each other. Linearity is also very important if you want a decent story that the modern Zelda offers. In Nintendo's current casual-friendly day in age, linearity is more important than ever as it gives Nintendo room to add difficulty as the game goes on.

Non-linearity has nothing to offer except more work for the developers. Doing dungeons in a different order offers nothing for the game experience except for some awkward gameplay and continuity.

The irony is A Link to the Past pulled off what you're saying perfectly and Twilight Princess did the opposite. ALttP's, dungeons often didn't rely solely on items (which you seem to think dungeons need to do), so some dungeons could be completed without a certain item from a previous dungeon. However, there was a perfect amount of restriction as to which dungeons couldn't be done without a specific item, which allowed for items that weren't used in some dungeons to be used in these. TP's dungeons relied entirely on the items found within them, but rarely were any of them used outside of their, shall we say, homes.

This is pretty much automatic proof that linearity doesn't automatically lead to any kind of idea-building, and that non-linearity can do exactly what you claim only linearity can do.

P.S Wind Waker HD looks amazing.

But it's not Cel-shaded. Without the Cel-shading, it's just not The Wind Waker.

 

[Vaati101]

A Link to the Past is always what I'm referring to when discussing non-linearity in Zelda, so...

Don't wish to be rude, but I haven't seen you do this... like at all... Your general comment about Non-linearity never referenced A Link to the past, just saying.

 

[Ventus]

Linearity allows the developers to build off content. Rather than restrict an item to one dungeon and never use it again, linearity allows developers to use items in different dungeon scenarios and even think of ways items can be used in conjunction with each other. Linearity is also very important if you want a decent story that the modern Zelda offers. In Nintendo's current casual-friendly day in age, linearity is more important than ever as it gives Nintendo room to add difficulty as the game goes on.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Having non-linearity in a game does not mean all items will be useful in one dungeon and that dungeon only. Take a look at Ocarina of Time, which is somewhat non-linear in its own right. Almost all items in Adult Link's quest have an application here or there, but you can do so many orders out the wazoo. At worst, you have to complete a dungeon halfway, grab the item, then start on your non-linear quest. Isn't too bad, and the temples in OoT have something of a difficulty curve (well...it's probably a sine wave as far as difficulty goes).

Non-linearity also doesn't hurt story. Open ended stories can be as good (even better) as linear stories. Y'ever play a game with multiple endings? I assure you those are non-linear in some respects. :I
----
Anywho, I'm fine with having linearity being scrapped. It's only hurt the franchise as far as I'm concerned; I am not one to play the same game over and over again in the same exact fashion and still be happy with it.

As for co-op, mixed bag. I need to hear more about it.

 

[JuicieJ]

Don't wish to be rude, but I haven't seen you do this... like at all... Your general comment about Non-linearity never referenced A Link to the past, just saying.

I never said I directly refer to it. I just said it's what I'm referring to. To be clearer, ALttP is my reference point.

 

[A Link In Time]

While is in the hands of the main player? So you'd have to look over the other person's shoulder? I don't get how that would work or how it sounds like a good idea.

No. It's cumbersome now with only sole GamePad support not that I think about it but a second player could play looking at the TV with a Wii Remote or Pro Controller. I'm not sure what you're referring to with your statement of looking over the other person's shoulder.

 

[Lord Carlisle]

It seems like every one of your posts that I read is pessimistic, darkestlink. Still, I can't help but agree about linearity.

Rethinking 'Playing by yourself' could just mean Miiverse integration. Although I can tolerate local co-op, I would hate to see online play. Zelda should really be a single-player adventure.

A Luma system, like in SMG2, could work. You know, but with a Fairy.

 

[Ventus]

No. It's cumbersome now with only sole GamePad support not that I think about it but a second player could play looking at the TV with a Wii Remote or Pro Controller. I'm not sure what you're referring to with your statement of looking over the other person's shoulder.

Hmm...I'm not sure dual GamePad support would work well with Zelda, unless they make the game a 30FPS game (remember dual GP = halved framerate, source here https://twitter.com/NintendoAmerica/status/210042661158137858 "#IwataSays #WiiU will support two separate GamePads! If we connect 2 GamePads, the frame rate is half at 30 frames/second. " ).

But if that isn't what you were getting at, then yes I totally agree that Gamepad (Traditional controls) + Pro Controller or Wiimote (traditional or SS) would be pretty nice for Zelda. Give us two combat characters instead of the little helper like the Luma was in SMG1/2.

 

[Tearbender]

The thing about SS's linearity is that it made the improvement of being able to use almost all your items in a dungeon, not putting them to waste. I mean unless they have some branching paths in the dungeon where u can progress through different parts to complete that dungeon(which could add a good incentive for replayability and re visiting dungeons) it would be like taking two steps forward and one step backwards.

 

[DarkestLink]

The irony is A Link to the Past pulled off what you're saying perfectly and Twilight Princess did the opposite. ALttP's, dungeons often didn't rely solely on items (which you seem to think dungeons need to do), so some dungeons could be completed without a certain item from a previous dungeon. However, there was a perfect amount of restriction as to which dungeons couldn't be done without a specific item, which allowed for items that weren't used in some dungeons to be used in these. TP's dungeons relied entirely on the items found within them, but rarely were any of them used outside of their, shall we say, homes.

This is pretty much automatic proof that linearity doesn't automatically lead to any kind of idea-building, and that non-linearity can do exactly what you claim only linearity can do.

I don't recall aLttP doing a dungeon with multiple item requirements...well except for the optional side crap that nobody wanted to do, but then again, I haven't played the game in awhile since there wasn't much enjoyment to be found. But aLttP definitely had a poor story. Little better than the original really. And yes, dungeons should rely on items. That's one of the reasons I found aLttP's dungeons so poor. Hacking and slashing at enemies nonstop with very little puzzles (and repetitive ones) gets stale and it gets stale fast.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Having non-linearity in a game does not mean all items will be useful in one dungeon and that dungeon only. Take a look at Ocarina of Time, which is somewhat non-linear in its own right. Almost all items in Adult Link's quest have an application here or there, but you can do so many orders out the wazoo. At worst, you have to complete a dungeon halfway, grab the item, then start on your non-linear quest.

That isn't non-linearity. You're still doing dungeons in an order even if you leave halfway. Why anyone would go so far out of the way to do this just to go through a tainted game experience is beyond me.

Isn't too bad, and the temples in OoT have something of a difficulty curve (well...it's probably a sine wave as far as difficulty goes).

It had an intended order too...and it was usually hard to do anything non-linear without jumping through hoops and going out of your way to do it with only some exceptions.

Non-linearity also doesn't hurt story. Open ended stories can be as good (even better) as linear stories. Y'ever play a game with multiple endings? I assure you those are non-linear in some respects. :I

Nintendo could do it, but they don't care enough about story to actually do it. The LoZ story was nonexistant till OoT. MM, tWW, and TP all had far more linear gameplay and far greater story too.

Anywho, I'm fine with having linearity being scrapped. It's only hurt the franchise as far as I'm concerned; I am not one to play the same game over and over again in the same exact fashion and still be happy with it.

I cannot fathom why that is...but it's your opinion and view, so I guess I'll accept it.

 

[SNOlink]

I think altering the fact that dungeons are ordered might work, but I'm really not sure. On the one side, there is the fact dungeons might be made easier given that you might not have the item for a certain puzzle if you decided to do the dungeon with that item later. On the other side, though, this would have you revisit dungeons to get hidden areas you could only access with that item making the game feel less linear.

The multi-player thing I feel I won't really care about. I'm sure if they do this, they'll give it the option to go either single- or multi-player and chances are I'll be playing single-layer most of the time anyways.

 

[Dukusword]

From what it seems dungeon wise they might want to go back to how Zelda 1 was, from what they said it sounds like it.