• 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.

Spoiler TP and SS Are a Kick in the Groin to Anyone Who Likes Nonlinear Progression

MW7

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Ohio
Most Zelda games have a point about a third or halfway through the game in which your quest comes to a stopping point and then you set back out looking for something new. This standard was set up in ALTTP in which you searched for 3 pendants and then 7 crystals in the next part of the game. In OOT you searched for 3 spiritual stones and then 6 medallions. ALTTP and OOT allowed for much deviation in the second halves of their respective games (ALTTP was nearly as free as the original LOZ). MM deviated completely and WW was a little different in that you had dungeons in the middle that you had a single goal within (i.e. you went to Tower of the Gods to prove yourself and you went to the Forsaken Fortress to get your sister back). It wasn't just collect 1 of the 5 or whatever things you needed and it tied directly into the plot.

Then came TP which followed the standard of ALTTP with collecting 3 fused shadows and then searching for four mirror shards (in later dungeons the game gets linear for a reason). Upon retrieving the Master Sword, you are directed by mail to visit the group of four adventurers in Telma's Bar. Anyone with a pulse can guess that they will lead you to the next four dungeons. Midna thinks the complete mirror is in the desert so you go there first only to find that it is broken and that shards are missing. There really isn't a solid reason why you can't explore Snowpeak before the desert though; the ice melts so you can get to the area, but you can't get to the dungeon without the reekfish scent. Wouldn't it have made sense to be able to talk to Ashei at Telma's Bar, send her to Snowpeak, then set the quest in motion to get the reekfish before going to Gerudo Desert? If you want to explore, you should be able to go there earlier than the game lets you because there is no relevance to the plot that means you shouldn't be at Snowpeak at that point in the story. If you get the mirror shard in Snowpeak Ruins, wouldn't Midna be able to realize that the mirror is broken and explain everything there?

If you disagree with me there, I can understand wanting to learn everything at the top of the Arbiter's Grounds. However, there is zero plot relevance for having to do the Snowpeak Ruins before the Temple of Time. Furthermore, there is absolutely no plot relevance as to why you should have to complete the City in the Sky before the Snowpeak Ruins. My point is, forcing linearity makes sense when it ties directly into the plot, but when it doesn't all the designers are doing is restricting freedom. In the case of the Snowpeak Ruins, there is zero relevance to the plot as to why it has to fit into the dungeon progression the way that it does. There's a reason Temple of Time has to be before City in the Sky- you need the Dominion Rod. However, I see no reason why the game introduces you to four people simultaneously who will lead you to the next four dungeons, but then forces you to proceed through one path. It got my hopes up the first time I played through the game that I'd be able to play through in different ways the next time, but then that dream was shattered.

Having to beat the game in the same order every time makes it more like a movie rather than a unique experience. Wouldn't it have been cool to have been able to beat Snowpeak first on your next playthrough so that you could easily deal with the various skeleton enemies of Arbiter's Grounds with the ball and chain? Or wouldn't it have been cool if you could have solved the City in the Sky before Arbiter's Grounds and Snowpeak so that maybe the designers could have put in a shortcut in those particular dungeons for players who had the double clawshots? The designers of Twilight Princess made the game limit freedom and choice for no reason whatsoever, and the players have to suffer the consequences. For those of you who like direction, the game still could have highly suggested the original order so there isn't a reason to oppose this.

Finally, Skyward Sword was released and I had high hopes that we'd be able to progress through the game in multiple ways after I felt claustrophobic by playing Twilight Princess. The game was much more free than Twilight Princess, and even allowed players to complete the Song of the Hero Quest in any order. I still have an issue though with how dungeon progression was dealt with. The first three dungeons you are basically following Zelda around on the surface so there is a direct link to the plot the entire time you are progressing through this linear portion of the game. However, once you open the Thunderhead I don't see any reason why the game introduces the classic "you need this many of this" found all the way back in ALTTP (actually LoZ with the Triforce pieces now that I think about it) but then falls into the same boat as Twilight Princess of forcing you to pursue the quest items in a particular order.

Fi tells you there are 3 flames, but then why do you have to go to Faron first? The only thing you do between the Ancient Cistern and going back to Lanayru is go back to the Isle of Songs in the Thunderhead. There is no relevance to the plot whatsoever that implies that the flame in Faron should be obtained before the one in Lanayru. The same goes for doing the Fire Sanctuary last. It certainly makes a more sense for that one to be last because of the boss, but for the purposes of the plot you are only there for one of three flames. There's one instance in the Sandship of needing the whip, but in that instance the whip has the exact same function that a simple rope could have served. As far as I remember the only item (from the quests involving the Ancient Cistern and the Sandship) that is required in the Fire Sanctuary is the clawshots. I assume it would have been very simple to alter the dungeon so that the clawshots weren't required.

I understand requiring one order when there is direct relevance to the plot as following Zelda to the Skyview Temple. It's not like you go, "Oh Zelda went to Faron, I think I'll tackle Eldin first" (assuming the game allowed you to go there at that point). However, during the flame quest it's as simple as there are three flames and go get them. The only reason you have to go to Faron first is because the game only gives you that song. Wouldn't everyone have benefitted if you were given all three songs at once? You wouldn't have had to perform the repetitive task of returning to the Isle of Songs just for a song two more times. Furthermore, people that wanted to stray from the intended path would have benefitted from the freedom. I know for certain that if given the choice, I would do the Sandship before the Ancient Cistern every time. There is even a thread about how late we got the bow in the game http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?27927-Do-You-Think-We-Got-the-Bow-Too-Late-in-Skyward-Sword. The bow would have made the Ancient Cistern easier because it is so powerful. The other distance weapons don't have deadly force (except the bomb but it's a little inconvenient to use it as a distance weapon because of the timing fuse) so the bow is a great asset at that point in the game. Also if we were free to complete parts of dungeons and then move on to the next one, I definitely would have taken advantage of that so that I could get the heart pieces outside in the overworld that required the dungeon items so that I could fight the bosses with more health. It's something I do all the time in ALTTP. All I want is freedom- Twilight Princess utterly failed while Skyward Sword was a disappointment in this regard.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Well, you've actually made me realize the downsides to linearity.

I've found that Zelda titles that are centered around story elements (story heavy) tend to correlate with linearity. That being said, I've come to realize that it isn't wise to assume that all titles released after SS (or TP for that matter) will be story-heavy, and linearity in all future titles thereafter is not etched in stone. To me it isn't a big deal that story-heavy titles choose linearity while others don't, as I can understand that sacrifices must be made. I can't speak for everyone, though.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
that story-heavy titles choose linearity while others don't, as I can understand that sacrifices must be made.
My good Wolfie, I don't believe that story heavy titles have to go down the linear path to damnation. The story itself can be linear, that is story events will only happen in X area and X area only, but the gameplay is standalone. I should be able to progress to any part of the land (barring places that actually need "unlocking" such as Thunderhead, Temple of Time, etc) and play through that section. It isn't as if the big baddy (Ganondorf, Ghirahim, you name it) creates new enemies as you defeat the previous existing ones. Koloktos likely was down in Ancient Cistern since before Link learned of the Sky Barrier and what not. I should be able to go down there and beat the tar out of Koloktos, or at least progress as far as I can into AC without being forced to follow the story. I don't buy the game for the story (and I know that isn't true exactly for everyone), I buy the game for the gameplay. Nintendo used to be in touch as far as (non)linearity goes, but they got out of it, didn't they?
 

MW7

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Ohio
Well, you've actually made me realize the downsides to linearity.

I've found that Zelda titles that are centered around story elements (story heavy) tend to correlate with linearity. That being said, I've come to realize that it isn't wise to assume that all titles released after SS (or TP for that matter) will be story-heavy, and linearity in all future titles thereafter is not etched in stone. To me it isn't a big deal that story-heavy titles choose linearity while others don't, as I can understand that sacrifices must be made. I can't speak for everyone, though.
I'm just scared that they will stick with it, and it's one of my favorite things about other games in the series. You do have a point though because Phantom Hourglass is fairly nonlinear from what I've heard (other aspects of the game hold me back from replaying it a lot) so it's not like Nintendo has completely turned away from this style of game. It bothers me most though that TP and SS are set up like ALTTP and OOT but just subtract out the freedom to beat dungeons in different orders.
My good Wolfie, I don't believe that story heavy titles have to go down the linear path to damnation. The story itself can be linear, that is story events will only happen in X area and X area only, but the gameplay is standalone. I should be able to progress to any part of the land (barring places that actually need "unlocking" such as Thunderhead, Temple of Time, etc) and play through that section. It isn't as if the big baddy (Ganondorf, Ghirahim, you name it) creates new enemies as you defeat the previous existing ones. Koloktos likely was down in Ancient Cistern since before Link learned of the Sky Barrier and what not. I should be able to go down there and beat the tar out of Koloktos, or at least progress as far as I can into AC without being forced to follow the story. I don't buy the game for the story (and I know that isn't true exactly for everyone), I buy the game for the gameplay. Nintendo used to be in touch as far as (non)linearity goes, but they got out of it, didn't they?

I think story is ruining Zelda games, but it has to be there for other people. Nintendo definitely has more of a linear leaning nowadays though. I don't like the tradition of unlocking areas of the games from PH (weird how they restrict where you can go but also allow for different dungeon progressions) and ST. So in SS I was a disappointed to see the tablets to create passages to the surface. It's not just Zelda though that's getting more linear- it's apparent in Mario as well. That series started off as the linear counterpart to the extremely nonlinear Zelda, but Super Mario 64 was extremely nonlinear. You can do pretty much whatever you want to do in that game, and then there are 3 tiny parts that must be done linearly. Super Mario Sunshine was the same way but then the Galaxy games were slightly less so. Super Mario 3d Land was really linear so the Mario series has gone full circle. Hopefully the console titles continue to be nonlinear (to be clear I had no problem with the Galaxies- I think they just had more structure than necessary compared to the previous two 3d Mario platformers).

One thing I also dislike but didn't mention really is how now items play no role in progression. In Majora's Mask you could easily finish the dungeons in reverse order because all the areas of the game were unlocked by getting an item or Epona and not by finishing a particular dungeon. ALTTP is exactly the same as well in the second half of the game.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom