HappyMaskSlsman
Smilus Creepus
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Location
- It's a Secret to Everybody
Suddenly, the great cloth above you unfurls like a mammoth scroll. The wind siezes its opportunity, grasping the vulnerable sail and pushing with a ceaseless force onwards. Foam rises up before your youthful face as you realize that, for the first time, you are entirely free. The entire sea is before you, and beyond that-the world. You surge forward into the massive grey nothingness, with naught but the salt filled air and cries of far off seagulls to remind you that this new realm is not completely void of life.
Any person who has ever mentioned the experience of playing the Wind Waker will inevitably mention its foremost method of travel. Sailing upon the Great Sea for the first time in the King of Red Lions after departing from Outset Island was certainly an unforgettable moment for any player. The vastness of the watery land is striking as the world of naval travel opens up to us for the first time. As gulls swoop down overhead, we are treated to jets of water spuming into the air in our wake. At this point, we begin to spot islands in the distance, and we cannot help but wish we could be treated to such travel in real life. As the game progresses, we become used to this thrill, and a major point of contention between Zelda fans begins to take shape.
Though the Wind Waker is often considered one of the best games in the series, many people will stay their good ratings for one reason- the sea travel. Complaints often arise among reviewers and players alike, each flatly stating that the ocean travel of the cel shaded Zelda title is to "tedious" and "boring". Many close fans of the series will shrug off these unappreciative remarks, but many cannot help but agree with those who cry out. Several years later, Twilight Princess is released, and we are treated to an amazing game. Everything about it seems almost perfect. However, complaints still exist as many, remembering Wind Waker, complain of the newer title's Hyrule Field. At this point, two very firm arguements are placed.
The first group, and perhaps more common of the two, points out that both the Hyrule Field of Twilight Princess and the Great Sea of Wind Waker were just wads of "dead space", put in place only to make the world of each game seem much larger than they actually are. The large expanses of seemingly nothing make for relatively boring travel, as enemies are scarce, and there is little to do until you arrive at your desired location. This was only magnified by the fact that the game required one to visit countless islands in order to collect the needed pieces of the Triforce in order to proceed. They certainly do have a point, as a large percentage of game time (moreso in Wind Waker) is spent traveling from one end of the world map to another. Nintendo seemingly tried to reduce this by incorporating warp points in each title, which eased this apparent pain in TP, but were far too scare in WW to truly help.
The second group, which is composed mostly of fans, points out that this travel truly was not boring, and that the land was far more realistic that way. After all, if one truly were to travel through Hyrule, reaching Death Mountain from Kokiri Forest truly would take a great deal of time.
I, though I do see the points of first group, am entirely a member of the latter.
Firstly, I will state that I never found Wind Waker or Twilight Princess's travel to be tedious or boring. In WW, I repeatedly hit the jump button, and soaring through the air above the waves for a split second in a small red boat was endlessly entertaining. The scenic ocean and beatutiful fields of Hyrule (in TP) were both appealing to the eye, distracting one from any thoughts of boredom. This was magnified by the truly stunning soundtrack, which, I admit, made me take longer routes only so that I may here it for slightly longer. Dashing through Hyrule Field upon Epona's back, or wandering on foot was a great experience, as we, for the first time, glimpsed the sheer magnitude of what Hyrul could be. I would constantly ride about, with no specific destination, gathering Bulbin riders behind me so that I could face them all at once, or race them around the land.
Though I will admit the enemies in WW were relatively scarce, I found TP's amount to be quite balanced. One would not want to have too many enemies wandering about, as two many can be just as annoying as too few. Though TP had a great deal of these "empty spaces", they were made up for with great and massive locations surrounding it. As for WW's lack of anything in many areas, I must point out- it is an ocean. In all reality, I would hope a game based around sea travel had large periods of just ocean.
This, of course, brings up another area of dispute- realism in Zelda games. I admit that I would not necessarily want an entirely realistic Zelda, as that would limit many of the series' key qualities. (This is a debate for another day). Rather, Zelda seems to maintain a balance of realism and fantasy that only Nintendo could create. I was not entirely a fan of Phantom Hourglass' system of travel. It, once again, returned to ocean travel, but (mostly due to system limitations) featured a compressed world map with a large population of enemies. I can see why they would opt to use this formula, especially for a DS Zelda, but is it truly the ideal map style.
Zelda harbors a close balance between realistic environments and fantastic storylines, constantly bridging gaps between reality and fiction. This equilibrium is essential to the series, as straying to far in either direction (most especially the "realistic") would lead to an unbalanced game, as well as upset many gamers. Many factors of reality are implied, but altered for the sake of it being a game. We can still die from sustaining to many injuries, though we are given an ample supply of hearts to sustain us; and wounds that would finish an ordinary human only knock off one or two of Link's life supply. The rules of gravity apply, and falling from a high ledge can be damaging, though a quick summersault as we meet the ground will spare us the damage and leave us seemingly unscathed. It is this constant bouncing between reality and fantasy that helps to define the Zelda experience. The same rules apply for travel. Yes, it takes a long while to travel across an entire land, though, in all reality, we're only "wasting" a few minutes of playtime. Now, suppose this balance was disrupted.
Suddenly, the Wind Waker's world is reduced in size, with more enemies appearing in the waters of the ocean. Soon, the seemingly vast and exciting experience of sea travel just becomes another game mechanic, and the game seems a greast deal smaller. Imagine there is a hole beneath every tree in Twilight Princess with a quest item under each. Suddenly, questing would become tedious, as our gaming compulsion forces us to search every square inch of Hyrule Field. Suddenly, the game seems much smaller, and less memorable. Suddenly, the game's story- as exploration no longer seems as expansive, seems all the more linear- another point of contention among fans (which I will discuss in a later article). We'll feel that we are simply obeying the story, arriving at our next destination in moments, and all balance is lost. Fighting enemies becomes a nuisance, and quest items are no longer exciting. Perhaps, if this was allowed to occur, each game would receive the same number of complaints.
Does this apply to every Zelda? Every game has its own unique take on world travel, and each has been executed in the way that was most ideal to the game. Majora's Mask's map wasn't terribly large, but it allowed us to feel as though we were covering a large amount of ground while still having time to fulfill each sidequest. A Link to the Past's map was seemed far larger than it was, as we were met with countless enemies as sidequests, leading to an incredible adventure.
Despite all this, complaints will allways exist over Wind Waker's "dead space" (and for good reason). As a Zelda fan, I loved the massive feel to Hyrule and the great sea, but from a gaming standpoint, I can easily see why complaints would arise.
This being said, what do I propose? Imagine if Zelda gave us a Zelda (NES) experience once more. The map is massive, with necessary destinations spread out. However, there are many side items and secret areas to uncover. With this, there is also an excellent balance of enemies waiting to oppose us. We would, like in Skyward Sword, have different options of where to travel, and feelings of a "too linear" Zelda game would fade. Imagine if a massive world map were to be combined with massive world destinations on all sides of it. Suppose Zelda found the perfect balance of massive world travel and questing. I feel this is not too far off in the future.
My point in writing this article? I suppose it can be summed up in one sentence:
Don't be so eager to complain about "dead space" in Zelda travel- it was done for a reason.
Meh... this article really didn't turn out the way I wished, and I don't feel I made the desired points.
Any person who has ever mentioned the experience of playing the Wind Waker will inevitably mention its foremost method of travel. Sailing upon the Great Sea for the first time in the King of Red Lions after departing from Outset Island was certainly an unforgettable moment for any player. The vastness of the watery land is striking as the world of naval travel opens up to us for the first time. As gulls swoop down overhead, we are treated to jets of water spuming into the air in our wake. At this point, we begin to spot islands in the distance, and we cannot help but wish we could be treated to such travel in real life. As the game progresses, we become used to this thrill, and a major point of contention between Zelda fans begins to take shape.
Though the Wind Waker is often considered one of the best games in the series, many people will stay their good ratings for one reason- the sea travel. Complaints often arise among reviewers and players alike, each flatly stating that the ocean travel of the cel shaded Zelda title is to "tedious" and "boring". Many close fans of the series will shrug off these unappreciative remarks, but many cannot help but agree with those who cry out. Several years later, Twilight Princess is released, and we are treated to an amazing game. Everything about it seems almost perfect. However, complaints still exist as many, remembering Wind Waker, complain of the newer title's Hyrule Field. At this point, two very firm arguements are placed.
The first group, and perhaps more common of the two, points out that both the Hyrule Field of Twilight Princess and the Great Sea of Wind Waker were just wads of "dead space", put in place only to make the world of each game seem much larger than they actually are. The large expanses of seemingly nothing make for relatively boring travel, as enemies are scarce, and there is little to do until you arrive at your desired location. This was only magnified by the fact that the game required one to visit countless islands in order to collect the needed pieces of the Triforce in order to proceed. They certainly do have a point, as a large percentage of game time (moreso in Wind Waker) is spent traveling from one end of the world map to another. Nintendo seemingly tried to reduce this by incorporating warp points in each title, which eased this apparent pain in TP, but were far too scare in WW to truly help.
The second group, which is composed mostly of fans, points out that this travel truly was not boring, and that the land was far more realistic that way. After all, if one truly were to travel through Hyrule, reaching Death Mountain from Kokiri Forest truly would take a great deal of time.
I, though I do see the points of first group, am entirely a member of the latter.
Firstly, I will state that I never found Wind Waker or Twilight Princess's travel to be tedious or boring. In WW, I repeatedly hit the jump button, and soaring through the air above the waves for a split second in a small red boat was endlessly entertaining. The scenic ocean and beatutiful fields of Hyrule (in TP) were both appealing to the eye, distracting one from any thoughts of boredom. This was magnified by the truly stunning soundtrack, which, I admit, made me take longer routes only so that I may here it for slightly longer. Dashing through Hyrule Field upon Epona's back, or wandering on foot was a great experience, as we, for the first time, glimpsed the sheer magnitude of what Hyrul could be. I would constantly ride about, with no specific destination, gathering Bulbin riders behind me so that I could face them all at once, or race them around the land.
Though I will admit the enemies in WW were relatively scarce, I found TP's amount to be quite balanced. One would not want to have too many enemies wandering about, as two many can be just as annoying as too few. Though TP had a great deal of these "empty spaces", they were made up for with great and massive locations surrounding it. As for WW's lack of anything in many areas, I must point out- it is an ocean. In all reality, I would hope a game based around sea travel had large periods of just ocean.
This, of course, brings up another area of dispute- realism in Zelda games. I admit that I would not necessarily want an entirely realistic Zelda, as that would limit many of the series' key qualities. (This is a debate for another day). Rather, Zelda seems to maintain a balance of realism and fantasy that only Nintendo could create. I was not entirely a fan of Phantom Hourglass' system of travel. It, once again, returned to ocean travel, but (mostly due to system limitations) featured a compressed world map with a large population of enemies. I can see why they would opt to use this formula, especially for a DS Zelda, but is it truly the ideal map style.
Zelda harbors a close balance between realistic environments and fantastic storylines, constantly bridging gaps between reality and fiction. This equilibrium is essential to the series, as straying to far in either direction (most especially the "realistic") would lead to an unbalanced game, as well as upset many gamers. Many factors of reality are implied, but altered for the sake of it being a game. We can still die from sustaining to many injuries, though we are given an ample supply of hearts to sustain us; and wounds that would finish an ordinary human only knock off one or two of Link's life supply. The rules of gravity apply, and falling from a high ledge can be damaging, though a quick summersault as we meet the ground will spare us the damage and leave us seemingly unscathed. It is this constant bouncing between reality and fantasy that helps to define the Zelda experience. The same rules apply for travel. Yes, it takes a long while to travel across an entire land, though, in all reality, we're only "wasting" a few minutes of playtime. Now, suppose this balance was disrupted.
Suddenly, the Wind Waker's world is reduced in size, with more enemies appearing in the waters of the ocean. Soon, the seemingly vast and exciting experience of sea travel just becomes another game mechanic, and the game seems a greast deal smaller. Imagine there is a hole beneath every tree in Twilight Princess with a quest item under each. Suddenly, questing would become tedious, as our gaming compulsion forces us to search every square inch of Hyrule Field. Suddenly, the game seems much smaller, and less memorable. Suddenly, the game's story- as exploration no longer seems as expansive, seems all the more linear- another point of contention among fans (which I will discuss in a later article). We'll feel that we are simply obeying the story, arriving at our next destination in moments, and all balance is lost. Fighting enemies becomes a nuisance, and quest items are no longer exciting. Perhaps, if this was allowed to occur, each game would receive the same number of complaints.
Does this apply to every Zelda? Every game has its own unique take on world travel, and each has been executed in the way that was most ideal to the game. Majora's Mask's map wasn't terribly large, but it allowed us to feel as though we were covering a large amount of ground while still having time to fulfill each sidequest. A Link to the Past's map was seemed far larger than it was, as we were met with countless enemies as sidequests, leading to an incredible adventure.
Despite all this, complaints will allways exist over Wind Waker's "dead space" (and for good reason). As a Zelda fan, I loved the massive feel to Hyrule and the great sea, but from a gaming standpoint, I can easily see why complaints would arise.
This being said, what do I propose? Imagine if Zelda gave us a Zelda (NES) experience once more. The map is massive, with necessary destinations spread out. However, there are many side items and secret areas to uncover. With this, there is also an excellent balance of enemies waiting to oppose us. We would, like in Skyward Sword, have different options of where to travel, and feelings of a "too linear" Zelda game would fade. Imagine if a massive world map were to be combined with massive world destinations on all sides of it. Suppose Zelda found the perfect balance of massive world travel and questing. I feel this is not too far off in the future.
My point in writing this article? I suppose it can be summed up in one sentence:
Don't be so eager to complain about "dead space" in Zelda travel- it was done for a reason.
Meh... this article really didn't turn out the way I wished, and I don't feel I made the desired points.
Last edited:
