General Zelda What's Up with the Linearity Hate?

[The Wanderer]

Firstly, to any "Non-linearity would ruin the story!" or "Non-linearity makes dungeons boring!" statements that might crop up, I've already answered this. The article doesn't answer every potential question, though, so I might as well elaborate.

So why should Zelda return to non-linearity at all, anyway? Well, for one, the series was founded on that entire concept. Beyond just being an adventure to hack and slash your way to the princess - any game can do that - it was designed to present the player with choice and freedom. That's why the original Zelda let you do dungeons in almost any order you wanted, regardless of what items you found previously. That's why the overworld was so open and let you take all kinds of routes to your destination instead of wandering between two hemmed-in walls. Living your adventure fantasy the way you wanted to is Zelda's defining aspect, not just an obligatory add-on. It would be like Pokemon releasing a main-series game where you can't catch Pokemon, or a Devil May Cry game where you're only allowed to kill enemies by stealthily sniping them from a distance.

Regardless of how "key" non-linearity is, though, it's still an old Zelda concept that was well-received by many people. To that end, it would at least be a good business decision for Nintendo to keep going with a good thing. Some may protest, but they are "some" compared to "the majority," and companies will generally play toward the majority.

Besides, non-linearity doesn't have to be such a bad thing. If there were problems with it beforehand, eliminate the problems and release the ideal package rather than shutting the concept down entirely. I'm not necessarily saying every Zelda game henceforth should be non-linear, since different gameplay and story techniques can be utilized with linear approaches, but it's been a long time since we've seen open choice and freedom in Zelda, so A Link Between Worlds and Zelda U would be prime opportunities to bring the old core concept back to life.

The kind of non-linearity I'm hoping for is a), the chance for near-complete world exploration from the beginning, and b), the ability to play any dungeon in the order you want regardless of what items or powers you've obtained beforehand. Zelda can and has had challenging puzzles without relying on previous items that much. My favorite Zelda puzzle is from Link's Awakening, where an owl statue gives you a hint that goes something along the lines of "Enter the space where the eyes have walls." Such a thing is surely a typo, right? Doesn't it mean "the walls have eyes"? (Note: puzzle spoiler imminent.) Nope: the puzzle in question takes place in the Face Shrine, which is, of course, constructed to resemble a giant face from above. The two empty spots in the middle are supposed to be its eyes. Bomb your way into those middle sections, and you're on your way to completing the dungeon. Stuff like that is what non-linear Zelda games could do. By using riddles, brainteasers, and relying on current dungeon items and themes, dungeons can easily be challenging and entertaining without relying on previous items.

Long story short, non-linearity can easily be a good thing, it sounds like the majority wants it, the majority has enjoyed it whenever it's appeared thus far, and it's Zelda's principle concept that lost its way somewhere. I see little reason it shouldn't return. Even if we're all being "fooled" into enjoying a bad gameplay concept, the point of playing a game is to enjoy yourself.

 

[ProtagonistJake]

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.

Okay I have a problem with this.

An adventure is mainly about exploration and discovery. There is so much extra and optional goodies you can find in Link to the Past and LOZ that you can choose to make part of your adventure.
"You're given a goal, then a list of chores you have to complete", correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's every video game ever there pall... INCLUDING Mario 64... If there wasn't some form of path or challenge that continued the main plot, it could barely be considered a video game, unless of course the objective is to survive like in Minecraft, but i'm getting off topic again.

The difference being in Mario and Zelda is that the only optional stuff you can do in Mario is get more stars through more platforming levels. Which is good for it's genre, but saying that's more adventure-esq than willingly discovering side-quests that send you across the lands of this HUGE world, where you can find millions of optional goodies that increase your avatars characteristics, in many variety of forms, to help you either complete that overall quest (Which you can mostly do in any order you wish in those games might I add) or do other optional quests, is one of the silliest thing I've ever heard.

 

[The Jade Fist]

Imagine Metroid being an on rails shooter. [/sarcasm]Because exploration is dumb and no one wants to be bothered with it. [/sarcasm]


At The Wanderer, of course being able to use previous items to short cut the puzzles too. Such as the cane of brynia in Alttp could let you skip that huge loop around puzzle in the ice dungeon.

 

[CynicalSquid]

Since this has turned into a dungeon order debate and I am too lazy to read it all I'll just drop in my 2 cents.

What is honestly so bad about it. It doesn't ruin exploration that much. Just because you can't do the fourth dungeon after the first one doesn't mean the game sucks. You still have to explore the overworld to get to that dungeon and explore the dungeon to finish it.

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.

I think your standards for adventure games are way too high.

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.

Hyrule feels like a world. There is also a lot more to find than SM64. You just go around looking for stars in SM64. In Zelda there are secrets all around the overworld.

SM64 feels less like a world in my opinion, because you are just jumping in paintings. It doesn't feel like a world, it feels like a bunch of levels.

 

[Salem]

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.

So you're saying Zelda shouldn't be non-linear because all main objectives(dungeons) are non-optional therefore you think it makes no difference what order you take?

Have you played any Mega Man game? all 8 pre-fortress levels were non-option but can be done at any order, and I'm not suggesting Zelda has to be like Mega Man, but I'm wondering what you think.

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

Oh nice, I forgot about the spirit temple not needing the megaton hammer.

 

[The Wanderer]

Since this has turned into a dungeon order debate and I am too lazy to read it all I'll just drop in my 2 cents.

What is honestly so bad about it. It doesn't ruin exploration that much. Just because you can't do the fourth dungeon after the first one doesn't mean the game sucks. You still have to explore the overworld to get to that dungeon and explore the dungeon to finish it.

I've never been particularly bothered by linearity, either. Actually, for a long time, I'd only played more-linear Zelda games the same way over and over, so I wasn't aware of what I was missing out on. And to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be hugely bothered if the next games were linear, too. Zelda has a bunch of other inherent characteristics which make it what it is, and if those characteristics are still handled well, I don't see why I wouldn't enjoy the next game. Still, anything could stand improvement, and Zelda has long since abandoned its core concept, so many of us would like the Zelda series to remember its roots and build on them. Crucial to marketing or player enjoyment? No, but it helps.

At any rate, sticking to founding concepts is important to most players since that's usually what they get involved in a franchise for. I maintain that Metroid: Other M was a good game. It was fun, it was ridiculous, it even promoted a bit of exploration with its item-finding. That said, I acknowledge it got way too far off what originally made Metroid fun (not to mention a few other key flaws), and this rubbed a lot of players the wrong way too much. The same thing can happen in Zelda, especially since quite a few members here had their Zelda origins in the first game, A Link to the Past, or another game in general which allowed more personal freedom.

 

[Justac00lguy]

Zelda works with a set of levels (the levels being dungeons). By its very core, non-linearity works against it.

Seriously, what? Just what?

The Legend of Zelda isn't structured around dungeons because that's what the series is about, it's structured around dungeons because that is the direction the game takes. You're acting as if this series can't go nonlinear because it has to stick to a strict set of dungeons. This is Zelda we're talking about, there is no strict direction for the series. Think about it, how easy, from a developers point of view, would it be to switch up dungeon order? To put less focus on dungeons? Etcetera. It's not that hard to achieve.

Zelda does fall victim to its heavily one dimensional structure, but that doesn't mean it can't change. In fact one wouldn't even have to deviate from the core of the series to do so. The game could still put high emphasis on dungeons but give the player a choice. Have a particular quest which involves the option on exploring three seperate locations/dungeons. This doesn't bring in full nonlinearity but, instead, just slightly loosens up the structure -- giving that feeling of freedom. That game could also add more filler in between said dungeons, make it feel as if advancing comes through completing quests rather than completing a said dungeon.

 

[CynicalSquid]

I've never been particularly bothered by linearity, either. Actually, for a long time, I'd only played more-linear Zelda games the same way over and over, so I wasn't aware of what I was missing out on. And to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be hugely bothered if the next games were linear, too. Zelda has a bunch of other inherent characteristics which make it what it is, and if those characteristics are still handled well, I don't see why I wouldn't enjoy the next game. Still, anything could stand improvement, and Zelda has long since abandoned its core concept, so many of us would like the Zelda series to remember its roots and build on them. Crucial to marketing or player enjoyment? No, but it helps.

I didn't even know you could do dungeons out of order in OoT, and that didn't stop me from replaying it.

I agree, Zelda has forgotten it's roots though, but even the early Zeldas weren't perfect either.

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).

How do you get to the Spirit Temple without the Lense of Truth though?

 

[Salem]

I didn't even know you could do dungeons out of order in OoT, and that didn't stop me from replaying it.

I agree, a game doesn't need to have "replay value" to be repayable, I reply I a lot of games, most are linear.

I agree, Zelda has forgotten it's roots though, but even the early Zeldas weren't perfect either

I would say, the only problems the nes LOZ had is the old man is too cryptic sometimes and the map isn't very helpful, other than that, it's perfect.

How do you get to the Spirit Temple without the Lense of Truth though?

Memorise the road in the haunted wasteland.

 

[CynicalSquid]

I agree, a game doesn't need to have "replay value" to be repayable, I reply I a lot of games, most are linear.

Exactly, and even with some linear games you can do different playthroughs.

Like in Zelda, you can do 3 heart runs, 100% the game, no L/Z targeting runs, and trying to beat the game without a walkthrough. So it adds some replay value, I guess.

I would say, the only problems the nes LOZ had is the old man is too cryptic sometimes and the map isn't very helpful, other than that, it's perfect.

Didn't most NES games have broken English though?

Memorise the road in the haunted wasteland.

That seems too hard though. Too many turns.

 

[MW7]

How do you get to the Spirit Temple without the Lense of Truth though?

Adding to what Sroa Link said- you can do that order with or without the lens of truth. I think you are thinking that you can't get the lens of truth until you see the cutscene for the Nocturne of Shadow. The Shadow Temple opens up once you beat Forest, Fire, and Water, but the Bottom of the Well can be beaten anytime after the Forest Temple. So for example you can beat the Forest Temple to be allowed to go back in time then do the Bottom of the Well right away, or you can do it after the Fire or Water Temples or never.

 

[DarkestLink]

So why should Zelda return to non-linearity at all, anyway? Well, for one, the series was founded on that entire concept.

I can't take this as an argument. That's like claiming the U.S. should legalize slavery again because when it was founded, slavery was legal.

Beyond just being an adventure to hack and slash your way to the princess - any game can do that - it was designed to present the player with choice and freedom.

I've never felt like I had choice and freedom in any Zelda title. I have no choice. I do these dungeons and I fight this boss. End of story. Doing in a different order doesn't make me feel any more free. It just makes it feel disorganized.

Regardless of how "key" non-linearity is, though, it's still an old Zelda concept that was well-received by many people. To that end, it would at least be a good business decision for Nintendo to keep going with a good thing. Some may protest, but they are "some" compared to "the majority," and companies will generally play toward the majority.

In the end though, Zelda titles with linearity have done better, in terms of reception, to the non-linear titles (when you average the scores out).

Besides, non-linearity doesn't have to be such a bad thing. If there were problems with it beforehand, eliminate the problems and release the ideal package rather than shutting the concept down entirely.

The problem is you end up putting so much effort, work, and money into nothing, leaving the rest of the game to suffer as well as delaying it.

By using riddles, brainteasers, and relying on current dungeon items and themes, dungeons can easily be challenging and entertaining without relying on previous items.

So basically...relying solely on riddles. Not only does this sound repetitive and boring...but it also sounds very restrictive to the developers. Making an entire dungeon's puzzles based off one item is very restrictive...having to incorporate riddles into each and every one of them is even more restrictive.

Long story short, non-linearity can easily be a good thing, it sounds like the majority wants it, the majority has enjoyed it whenever it's appeared thus far, and it's Zelda's principle concept that lost its way somewhere. I see little reason it shouldn't return. Even if we're all being "fooled" into enjoying a bad gameplay concept, the point of playing a game is to enjoy yourself.

Don't base your statistics on online fandoms. They're unreliable and change with the titles. In 2001-2005, tWW was scum on the franchise and MM was viewed as a failure. Then Twilight Princess came out, and the fanbase members shifted. The complainers left, now satisfied, and a new fanbase shifted in.

As for non-linearity, you haven't given me much evidence on the benefits...all you've really done is name ideas on how Nintendo can overcome its many obstacles.

"You're given a goal, then a list of chores you have to complete", correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's every video game ever there pall... INCLUDING Mario 64... If there wasn't some form of path or challenge that continued the main plot, it could barely be considered a video game,

In the end, there's a huge difference between "Complete the obstacles" and "Complete these obstacles". You have a choice in Mario. In Zelda, choice is irrelevant. Just complete the dungeons.

The difference being in Mario and Zelda is that the only optional stuff you can do in Mario is get more stars through more platforming levels. Which is good for it's genre, but saying that's more adventure-esq than willingly discovering side-quests that send you across the lands of this HUGE world, where you can find millions of optional goodies that increase your avatars characteristics, in many variety of forms, to help you either complete that overall quest (Which you can mostly do in any order you wish in those games might I add) or do other optional quests, is one of the silliest thing I've ever heard.

The sidequests, while optional, are irrelevant. They make the game easier, but bring you no closer to your goal. They aren't the focus. They're just optional goodies. I suppose you could call them the adventuring aspect of Zelda and that would be fair, but they aren't a focus. Doing the dungeons and killing Ganon is the focus.

And honestly, I find the sidequests to be one of the weakest aspects of Zelda as a series (I'd only exclude MM), but that's just my opinion.

I think your standards for adventure games are way too high.

Eh I wouldn't say my standards for adventure are too high...I just don't think it works well with Zelda. When it comes to the main quest, it's never felt like an adventure. It feels more like a task list. I'm not exploring...I'm looking for the dungeon. Calling that exploring is like losing my 3DS and then claiming I'm "exploring" my room for it. The only real adventure aspects I see with the series are the sidequests...and only MM so far has made it feel worth doing. Overall, I vastly prefer the main quest, so whatever you wanna call Zelda, it doesn't feel like an adventure to me and the adventuring aspects feel weaker compared to the main game.

Hyrule feels like a world. There is also a lot more to find than SM64. You just go around looking for stars in SM64. In Zelda there are secrets all around the overworld.

The thing is...the secrets aren't all that interesting to me. Not only that, but they don't have much of a role in the main game.

SM64 feels less like a world in my opinion, because you are just jumping in paintings. It doesn't feel like a world, it feels like a bunch of levels.

The reason they don't feel like levels to me is because you don't have to advance through them. Going through Bomb-Omb Battlefield is like going through Hyrule field in search of secrets...you don't have to do either one of them. The difference is, I feel that going through the paintings and finding stars is more rewarding and more meaningful than randomly seeing a poe or spotting a random hole. The stars bring you closer to your objective...the hole had 20 rupees...cool...but I could sell a bug for 50. Ooh a heart piece? ...Well the game was already pretty easy, but thanks I guess.

So you're saying Zelda shouldn't be non-linear because all main objectives(dungeons) are non-optional therefore you think it makes no difference what order you take?

Actually, order doesn't make a difference at all. I don't see the thrill in doing the spirit temple before the fire temple. I'd rather just stick to "the best order" that the developers made.

Have you played any Mega Man game? all 8 pre-fortress levels were non-option but can be done at any order, and I'm not suggesting Zelda has to be like Mega Man, but I'm wondering what you think.

I'm afraid not...Mega Man never clicked with me...^^;

The Legend of Zelda isn't structured around dungeons because that's what the series is about, it's structured around dungeons because that is the direction the game takes. You're acting as if this series can't go nonlinear because it has to stick to a strict set of dungeons.

It can go non-linear...but that leads to one of two things...

1) Developers halfass it and the dungeon quality suffers.

2) The developers work very hard to overcome the obstacles of non-linearity, spending an abundance of time and money, pushing the game back and having to cut on other aspects on the game...all for non-linearity, which has no benefit and many will simply ignore.

Think about it, how easy, from a developers point of view, would it be to switch up dungeon order? To put less focus on dungeons? Etcetera. It's not that hard to achieve.

Now what do you mean by switch up dungeon order? As in make a new dungeon order? Skyward Sword did this. If you mean make the series non-linear again, see 1 and 2 above.

And why should they put less focus on dungeons? That's the series strongest point! If you want a free exploration non-linear adventure game, go ahead...they're a dime a dozen and some of them can make it work with their formula. But there's no reason to change the Zelda core because you don't like it. If you don't like it, try a different series you will enjoy. Personally, I like the direction Zelda's taking. I love the dungeons. I like that the developers actually focus on creating a good direction and order for them, rather than just throwing them onto the field halfassed for us to find.

The game could still put high emphasis on dungeons but give the player a choice. Have a particular quest which involves the option on exploring three seperate locations/dungeons. This doesn't bring in full nonlinearity but, instead, just slightly loosens up the structure -- giving that feeling of freedom. That game could also add more filler in between said dungeons, make it feel as if advancing comes through completing quests rather than completing a said dungeon.

And this is why I didn't like the later PH dungeons. They didn't build off each other. They just scattered them to the winds and had us complete subpar dungeons. In the end, I just stuck with the natural order anyway. It's cleaner, neater, orderly, and makes the most sense.

 

[Vaati101]

I believe that Linearity has helped Zelda immensely and I think the games that have been produced thus far would be far better better than if Nintendo focused on exploration. My huge problem with the original Zelda is that there is no linearity. This is a problem because you have no idea where to go at all; no guidance, nothing. Obviously the whole point of exploration is to look for yourself, but would it kill to include some hints as to what to do?

Clearly Nintendo saw this as a problem to fans and thought of ways to make Zelda better. Disregarding Zelda II which was a completely different experience, Nintendo came up with A Link to the Past, which in my opinion was a massive improvement to the original Zelda. It introduced some form of Linearity by telling you where to go at first, but it still kept the freedom of exploring the overworld and completing dungeons in whatever order.

What I like about Linearity is that it gets things done, whereas exploration doesn't. I don't mind if a Zelda game focuses more on exploration than linearity, but I do mind if there was no linearity at all because you are then going back to the old days which is something I don't particularly want to do. I don't mind if Nintendo go back to the days of A Link to the Past (Which is what they are doing with A Link Between Worlds) because I think that was perfection, but to go back to the days of the Legend of Zelda would be a huge turn off for me.

 

[Ventus]

This is a problem because you have no idea where to go at all; no guidance, nothing. Obviously the whole point of exploration is to look for yourself, but would it kill to include some hints as to what to do?

What do you do with problems? You solve them, duh. I have gone through High School with no help at all, I've gotten a job and had no direction, and most recently I'm trying to apply to colleges but sites are down and not helping me whatsoever. When you're placed in the middle of nowhere, the very first thing you do is either a) ask for information or b) find information yourself. That's the real world for you, but video games are so much more forgiving in this aspect. I'm not asking for LoZ non linearity (although it'd be pretty awesome), but it isn't some horrible thing that can't be overcome with a little willpower. ;0

 

[Musicfan]

@ darkestlink when have they "halfassed it " as you put it. Can you post links to these scores you speek of?