• 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 What's Up with the Linearity Hate?

Musicfan

the shadow mage
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Location
insanity
I don't play Jenga. *shrug* Non-linearity isn't imaginary, no...but all it really does is give you (I say you, because it doesn't apply to me) the illusion that something different is happening, when it's not.

Also, I never understood some of the claims of OoT and MM letting you dungeons in different order. Nearly all cases for OoT involves glitching...and if we're going to count that, I may as well claim every Zelda is non-linear because I can hack my way to a different dungeon. MM almost always requires you to do over 50% of the current dungeon before advancing...that's not shifting the order, that's just leaving a dungeon incomplete and making more work for yourself to do.

Anyway, I just don't see the pleasure in it. It feels weird even when I have attempted it. It's like picking up Harry Potter or Narnia and starting with Chapter One, moving to Chapter Seven, going on to Chapter Six, then Chapter Two, Chapter Five, Chapter Three, etc. It feels like the journey and the story was just...sloppy...and ruined.

Something different is happening your doing a dunged with a different set of items, some time more items making it a little easier, or less items makeing it a little bit harder.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
While I'm not going to debate whether you see pleasure or your feelings towards dungeon order, I AM going to say that you're doing a wrong analogy. There IS no story with dungeons. They're pure filler. That's why doing them in any order is justified; there's no sequence of events that really needs to happen. ;)

No story with dungeons? With MM, yeah, otherwise I think I'd have an easier time naming dungeons without story than the ones with story. Let's see which ones don't have a story...

OoT: Maybe the Forest Temple, the water temple, maybe the shadow temple, and maybe Ganon's Castle.

tWW: Ganon's Tower

TP: Lakebed Temple, and maybe the Temple of Time.

SS: Maybe the Laynayru Mining Factory.

Not to mention all the pre-dungeon stuff you'd need to do, which has even more story.
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
Also, I never understood some of the claims of OoT and MM letting you dungeons in different order. Nearly all cases for OoT involves glitching...and if we're going to count that, I may as well claim every Zelda is non-linear because I can hack my way to a different dungeon. MM almost always requires you to do over 50% of the current dungeon before advancing...that's not shifting the order, that's just leaving a dungeon incomplete and making more work for yourself to do.
No, you're wrong.

Forest and fire can be switched around, even getting the map chest without shooting that eyeball switch, doesn't involve a glitch of some sort.
Water can be completed without entering the fire temple

Spirit and Shadow can be switched around, I did it more than once it isn't hard or glitchy.

In MM, the great bay can be switched with stone tower without entering either temple.

All of these don't involve getting an item and leaving the dungeon.
 
Last edited:

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
People use it as ammunition to hate on the more modern titles, which are getting increasingly linear. I'm fine with people saying they prefer non-linearity, but when they say it's a sign that one game is objectively better than the other, that's when it bugs me.
It's not wither linear/non-linear is objectively better than the other, it's more like modern Zelda games are linear but don't use the strengths of linear gameplay very well.
 

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Gender
Shewhale
I wouldn't label "literary" as bad, so to say, but there are a few subsequent problems it can bring. For one, in terms of Zelda, linearity can get somewhat boring. Things become one dimensional, basically you have this set path and there's no way to mix things up, making you play in the pattern that the game wants you to play.

This brings fourth that lack of freedom. That ability to choose what you want to do as a player, a game doesn't have to be fully open to give this sense of freedom just enough to bring a personal choice in to play. Sometime it can feel as if you trapped, "you can't go that way yet" -- "before you go there you have to do (name quest) first". I look at some of my favourite games of all time, and they add that feeling of freedom, there is just a sense of satisfactory when you can choose what to do and have the option in a game, I think it creates realism.

However, nonlinearity isn't perfect for all franchises, and the Zelda series follows a set pattern and sticks to a concrete formula, so why change it?I think this series, in particular, doesn't need to add that sense of freedom, but it would be welcomed addition in my eyes. As I said before, a game doesn't need to be fully open to bring in that sense of freedom, just nonlinearity in moderation. A good place to start, of course, would be dungeon order. Maybe not allowing the choice to choose between all dungeons but a set amount. For example; in Twilight Princess you have a moment in which there are three dungeons that are revealed to be your next destination - Snowpeak Ruins, The Temple of Time and the City in the Sky. Instead of having this set order, why not let the player choose. It's these sort of minor features that can free up the structure somewhat, add a sense of strategy and even replayability.

Linearity basically depends on the game at hand, it isn't "that" big of a deal but there are some downsides in my opinion, just a slight mix up to the structure could really change a lot in my opinion.
 

The Jade Fist

Kung Fu Master
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
People use it as ammunition to hate on the more modern titles, which are getting increasingly linear. I'm fine with people saying they prefer non-linearity, but when they say it's a sign that one game is objectively better than the other, that's when it bugs me.

But its an honest opinion of an overlaying aspect of the game.

For other types of games its perfectly fine, for a game like Zelda which was supposed to be about exploration from its roots, the lack of freedom is contrary to its own soul.

And ways heavily against the enjoyment of being able to replay some titles.

Simply put its bad for Zelda.

If it were a very focused narrative then it would be alright, but zelda doesn't quite hold up to being considered a solid narrative.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Forest and fire can be switched around, even getting the map chest without shooting that eyeball switch, doesn't involve a glitch of some sort.

Hence "nearly"

Water can be completed without entering the fire temple

Again "nearly", and doesn't the ice cavern require the megaton hammer? Or was it just Ganon's Castle? I keep mixing up those two...

Spirit and Shadow can be switched around, I did it more than once it isn't hard or glitchy.

How did you get that goddess statue chest that requires hover boots?

In MM, the great bay can be switched with stone tower without entering either temple.

Yeah and that's the only case. And you'd have to go pretty far out of your way to do it...and to know you can do it to begin with.
 

MW7

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Ohio
No, you're wrong.

Forest and fire can be switched around, even getting the map chest without shooting that eyeball switch, doesn't involve a glitch of some sort.
Water can be completed without entering the fire temple

Spirit and Shadow can be switched around, I did it more than once it isn't hard or glitchy.

In MM, the great bay can be switched with stone tower without entering either temple.

All of these don't involve getting an item and leaving the dungeon.

All that was perfect. There's one more dungeon switch in OoT. You can do the order Forest, Water, Spirit, Fire, Shadow because the megaton hammer switches in the Spirit Temple only lead to a shortcut (in Master Quest you do need the Megaton Hammer in the Spirit Temple). This means that without glitching or entering dungeons for the item and leaving there are 7 unique adult Link temple orders. Considering the fact that the Ice Cavern can be done anytime before the Water Temple upon becoming adult Link and that the Bottom of the Well can be done anytime after the Forest Temple or not even done at all, this means that the main quest of OoT is relatively open-ended.

I like taking advantage of the fact that you can grab the dungeon item and leave as well. In Ocarina of Time this means that you can switch Inside Jabu Jabu and Dodongo's Cavern, shuffle the first three adult Link dungeons however you want, and move Spirit anywhere after the Forest Temple. All in all ultimately you can beat the main quest in 274 different orders factoring in mini-dungeons as well. Majora's Mask can be completed in any order since the progression is based on having items so it has 4! or 16 potential orders.

Wait, seriously? How? I've played through PH multiple times, and I recall it being one of the most linear titles to date.

http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/blogs/2282/phantom-hourglass-nonlinear-haters-8626/

Again "nearly", and doesn't the ice cavern require the megaton hammer? Or was it just Ganon's Castle? I keep mixing up those two...
The Ice Cavern can be completed any time after pulling the Master Sword. You don't even need the hookshot.

How did you get that goddess statue chest that requires hover boots?
You can jump to it. Jumpslashing makes it a little easier.

Yeah and that's the only case. And you'd have to go pretty far out of your way to do it...and to know you can do it to begin with.
Warping just before you enter the Great Bay Temple and then warping back after doing Ikana takes maybe a minute. If you have to know you can do it to begin with, then how did it get discovered in the first place?
 
Last edited:

ProtagonistJake

Shepard
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
It limits exploration. Simple as that. It dose not force you to explore you are told go here here and here. You can have story with non linearity. You could have story progress based on how many dungeons are completed and so on. As for items you could have forking paths with different puzzle or even multiple solutions.
Was going to to say this, but you already did, so yeah.
Well said. :yes:

Any good adventure game should allow you to carve out your own adventure in some way.
It's part of the reason I like Wind Waker's islands a bunch.

Basically Zelda games should have more options, because that means a less limited adventure and such, making every players adventure being unique to that player.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
If you have to know you can do it to begin with, then how did it get discovered in the first place?

Mind rewording that?

Anyway, I never understood why people make a big issue of Zelda becoming linear and not 3D Mario becoming linear. To me, the 3D Mario series is able to pull it off much better than Zelda. It has nothing to lose and it worked great with SM64. Zelda loses story, puzzles, progression, character, developer creativity, item usage, organization, and clarity.
 

ProtagonistJake

Shepard
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Well I mean, 3D Mario games arent exactly adventure games.

They're platformers, which arent hurt in anyway by being linear.

Adventure games are, because the restriction makes everyones adventure exactly the same, instead of unique.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Anyway, I never understood why people make a big issue of Zelda becoming linear and not 3D Mario becoming linear. To me, the 3D Mario series is able to pull it off much better than Zelda. It has nothing to lose and it worked great with SM64. Zelda loses story, puzzles, progression, character, developer creativity, item usage, organization, and clarity.

Mario is a platformer. Linearity doesn't hurt a platformer whatsoever.

Zelda doesn't lose any of what you listed. Look at Ocarina of Time. It has little story, yes, but what little story it DOES have is the sort that is sectioned off. So, Zora's Domain has its own little story that isn't part of the overarching story, but still bleeds into it. Death Mountain is the same, Kokiri Forest is the same, etc. This means that completing the Fire Temple has no bearing on the Forest Temple, because they aren't directly linked. And why should dungeons and their surrounding areas be linked to some other area? This didn't happen in Skyward Sword nor did it happen in Twilight Princess, two of the most linear titles to date. All of the areas, for the most part, were sectioned off from each other storywise. Hell, the Parella knew not of the Kikwi for all I know! D:

Progression is never lost and I'm sorry that you could think that.

Developer creativity IS nonlinearity, it's their ability to think of multiple paths and styles to complete a game. D:

You know...chocolates. Zelda with nonlinearity has far more options than Zelda with linearity, all without sacrificing anything. ;)
 

MW7

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Ohio
Mind rewording that?
I'm just saying that the first person to ever hookshot the tree to cross the river didn't know you could do that. He or she was just trying it without knowing it would work. So you don't need to know that you're able to do Ikana before the Great Bay Temple in order to do it. A person can reasonably figure it out just with the desire to do so and effort, and this is true because someone did figure it out.

Anyway, I never understood why people make a big issue of Zelda becoming linear and not 3D Mario becoming linear. To me, the 3D Mario series is able to pull it off much better than Zelda. It has nothing to lose and it worked great with SM64. Zelda loses story, puzzles, progression, character, developer creativity, item usage, organization, and clarity.
I agree that Mario has gained less by going linear. I thought SM64 was great and Sunshine was awesome. I was less excited by the two Galaxy games due to less freedom, and now Mario seems to back to linear with Super Mario 3d Land and the fact that the new 3d Mario will follow in its footsteps. I disagree with the specific things you said Zelda would lose if it went back to nonlinearity though. For me personally it's just that I care for Zelda games far more than Mario games so that's why I focus on Zelda going linear. From my perspective the shift from nonlinear to linear in both series had costs and benefits. In Mario there were costs like reduced freedom with few benefits to justify going linear, but I just don't obsess over Mario games like I do Zelda so it doesn't matter as much to me. In Zelda there are more benefits to linearity than with Mario, but I feel like the benefits do not outweigh the costs.
 
Last edited:

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Well I mean, 3D Mario games arent exactly adventure games.

They're platformers, which arent hurt in anyway by being linear.

Adventure games are, because the restriction makes everyones adventure exactly the same, instead of unique.

I don't care what the genres are called, but SM64 felt more like an adventure than anything Zelda's had to offer. The reason why is because you weren't really doing anything specifically. You had one goal....and you could go about it any way you want. There is no path. You make your own path.

Zelda, even LoZ and aLttP, don't feel like an adventure because whatever order you do it in, it's always a strict path. You are given a goal...and then a list of chores you have to complete. It doesn't feel like an adventure. It feels like a quest. A story arc.

N64 platformers, especially SM64, feel like worlds. You don't complete the adventure by going through levels...you just explore the world, take what you can, and fight the boss. Zelda works with a set of levels (the levels being dungeons). By its very core, non-linearity works against it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom