General Zelda Why Does Everyone Like Non-linearity So Much?

[Justac00lguy]

I think the reason people really want it so much is because we are used to linear Zelda games etc.

Of course linearity isn't necessarily bad, but it can become slightly boring and predictable, so to say. Like no said, it's not bad, but when we're so used to linear Zelda games, it can become repetitive, fans are always looking for a switch up, something fresh etc. - it just so happens that many fans see the solution as making making the game less linear.

I think that's the key word here, "less linear". I do agree that the series--especially in recent years--needs a fresh injection of nonlinearity, but moderation is the key. Linearity keeps a certain structure to the game and without it, story and general progression can be effected. So I would love to see nonlinearity, but I wouldn't like a fully open Zelda game, just open in sections.

I think the reason why it is wanted so much is the positives it actually brings; a lot of people tend to just think it's all about decisions, but it can create a lot of benefits. For one, you do have that feeling of freedom, which is typically a good thing in games, it feels like the experience is more personal and it's not just the game leading you down the path of the plot. It also allows for more strategy; e.g which path is the best to take etcetera. And finally, it adds for that replayability factor, which is vital for a series like Zelda.

 

[Salem]

Maybe it's not so much as non-linearity itself, as it's more choice that what we have now. The player learns from mistakes in the first playthrough, the player tries to be more efficient in future playthroughs like how to beat the game the fastest, or just remembering where are the items are located that could potentially help in other places, possibilities, lake the completing the Misery Mire before the Ice palace makes it easier, even though the ice palace is level 5 and misery mire is 6.

 

[Mangachick14]

As much as I would like to do certain dungeons in different orders I am worried the plot will suffer.

This right here is why I think if non-linearity is implemented, it should be in the dungeons themselves and not in their order. What happens in the dungeons doesn't really affect the plot (Aside from maybe the Final Boss-- and for the most part, that's a pretty big maybe) but the order in which you do these dungeons can. Besides, how on earth does swapping around which order you play a dungeon in 'spice up the gameplay'? The way through the dungeon is still the same. If anything, I think the only thing gained from this feature would be the ability to procrastinate dungeons you didn't enjoy as much.

 

[The Wanderer]

My view on non-linearity is pretty varied, so I may be all over the place here.

Why do so many people want non-linearity back in Zelda?

#1: It's a founding concept of Zelda. Notice I said people want it BACK in Zelda. Linearity, while not necessarily a bad thing, is actually somewhat anti-Zelda. With the first Zelda game, Nintendo aimed to create a free, open world which you could explore almost entirely at your discretion. Linearity doesn't completely remove that element, but it does hinder it.

#2: It's an aid to adventure. Adventure can be linear, but also consider it this way: is it really exploration if you're told where to go every step of the way? Exploration is what Zelda is all about, and as such, many players (myself included) want that freedom unhindered.

#3: We haven't seen it in a long time. We have seen copious linearity, but we haven't really had a non-linear Zelda game for years upon years. It's a welcome change of pace to us.

In spite of this, I don't believe every single Zelda game should have complete non-linearity. The two sides aren't inferior or superior to each other; they're just different, and they come with their own pros and cons. It'd be nice if they could alternate between the two every now and then.

Similarly, the plot would be different, but not necessarily inferior. It requires a different approach. Think back to games like Majora's Mask or Metroid Prime. If you take them going from Point A to Point B, their stories suck. It's the groundwork, what's going on behind the scenes that everyone loves so much. Rather than crafting one long, linear narrative (like Lord of the Rings), you use symbolism, character development, sidequests, and subplots to deliver the world to the players as they see fit.

Puzzles do not and perhaps should not rely on previously-gained items to function. My favorite puzzles in the series are generally the ones that have no overt use of items at all, or could be easily replicated without said items, things like riddles, environmental clues, and mind games to get the brain working. At any rate, right now we have the opposite problem of what non-linearity might bring: we have items that are used solely for a small handful of puzzles but have no real function elsewhere. I'd rather have an item I consistently and smartly use in Link's everyday life than an item I only use for a few forced puzzles and nothing else.

Replayability actually usually isn't what's on my mind when pitching non-linearity, funnily enough. It's simply the freedom to progress as I see fit. If I want to know about Ganondorf's origins before I learn about the fate of that village he razed last week, I head to the Gerudo Desert first. I craft my own senses of discovery and narrative. And yes, replayability is nice, but that's not really the point of non-linearity. It's just having the freedom to play the game your way.

Come to think of it, a lot of people complain about the story taking too much precedence over gameplay in Zelda. One guy I debated with on here even implied he'd rather there be no real story at all, and yet one of peoples' biggest concerns about non-linearity is story order over gameplay.

Long story short, non-linearity is different, not inferior, it can work with the right approach, Nintendo is definitely working it out, and people want it because it's a gameplay style we haven't seen in Zelda for awhile.

 

[DarkestLink]

Your direct quote is, "They can't enjoy the same game more than once." Whether you care to realize it or not, that means it's not possible for someone like me to enjoy a game like Skyward Sword or any other modern Zelda game after one playthrough, which automatically implies it can't be my favorite.

Well seeing as nearly everyone on these forums (including you, if I remember correctly) goes on and on how playing a Zelda title more than once is a huge chore and that many of you only seem to play these titles 5 times at most...yes, I'm going to assume that many of you do not find subsequent playthroughs unenjoyable.

It goes without saying that not everything is in absolutes, so if you would like to testify yourself as someone who does enjoy consistently playing through modern titles and a fan of non-linearity, then feel free to do so in a mature manner, rather than freaking out and acting like I insulted your mother or something.

Implying it's impossible to commit a fallacy outside of an argument.

*sigh*

lmgtfy.com/?q=Fallacy+definition

Excuse me? You're going to use an even BIGGER strawman in response to me calling out a gaping hole in your severe generalization?

I'm starting to think you don't know what a straw man--actually, you don't seem to know what a fallacy is either, based on your last comment. Don't argue what you don't understand.

This is why no one takes you seriously.

Red herring
Ad hominem
Poisoning the well
Argumentum ad populum

Herp derp, I can do it too.

I'm not going to pretend I can speak for everyone here and how they feel about you, but one thing's for sure...you need to stop being a drama queen. You are freaking out and spazzing over every little thing rather than calmly disagreeing. You can't seem to control yourself at all and constantly...constantly resort to name calling and overall immature behavior.

You take this stuff way too seriously. We're simply having a discussion of a children's video game and why we feel some people are inclined to think one way over another. Calm down, state your opinion in a mature way, and don't make an issue over it. Don't treat everyone else like crap, because eventually that's going to cause problems...mainly for you.

I don't agree with a game being a whole new experience unless it's a game where you can be a completely different character in subsequent playthroughs, like in most good RPG's. Replay value is still a key factor, though. If executed right, it can offer varyied experiences, which further entices an already highly replayable game to be even more replayable. It's not complex to understand.

See? That's a lot better. This should have been the entirety of your two posts.

Fair enough. I disagree though because when presented in segments, it all feels the same to me. For example, if I were to play through the fire temple on a file with the forest temple completed and then again on a file without the forest temple completed, the change would be far too insignificant to consider a new experience. Same for the forest and water temple.

It is possible for Nintendo to design a game in which dungeon order will change the experience, but I haven't seen it. Many of you will reference LoZ, aLttP, and OoT, but what you consider varied experiences, I consider unnoticeable/irrelevant changes.

 

[Mangachick14]

What you are describing is essentially total non-linearity in dungeon design. It's not a bad thing. However, what I think you're looking for is the thing I call "non linearity by sets". If you've ever played a game in the Kingdom Hearts series, chances are you'll know that you have to complete three worlds in order to move onto the next set of worlds. Well, there is usually no predefined order except that you MUST do SET 1 > SET 2 > SET 3 > SET 4 in that order. But what it really looks like is this: (SET 1: 1) > (SET 2: 2, 3, 4) > (SET 3: 5, 6) > (SET 4: 7, 8) (SET 5: 9) . Worlds, or in this case dungeons since we're trying to get back to Zelda, in a set can be completed in any order. However some sets comprise only one dungeon, and for story purposes that dungeon must be completed at whatever point in time for the player to progress.

I was thinking more along the lines of still having the dungeons in a set order, but rather than just one way to get through the dungeon, there's 2 or 3. All eventually meet up in essential rooms like where you get the dungeon item, boss key, boss etc. Each of these 'paths', I guess I'll call them, will have their own puzzles to get through, their own enemies to defeat and so on. However, there's only enough keys to use one path. Therefore, in order to see everything in the temple, you have to replay the game, which is where I think you could get tremendous replay value out of this idea. So I think the dungeon order shouldn't be non-linear at all, I think that side of Zelda should stay put as is. The change in the game isn't the ability to choose which temple you wish to do first, but which way through the temple you'd like to go. So basically, it's like having two or three dungeons in one which you can choose between. It won't be like Mass Effect or anything, where you can change the plot through these decisions, you simply get a new temple experience each time you play (Well, until you've used every varying path, anyway).

Oh my... I really hope that makes sense...

 

[JuicieJ]

How is this a strawman? Do you refuse to read my posts? I've told you twice what a strawman means. How is this a strawman?

2. strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted; an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious

You wanna run that by me again?

inb4 you don't respond as per usual

Really funny, because this is the second time you've said that. I can seldom think of a more humbling experience.

 

[JuicieJ]

BECAUSE the last TWO times I showed you were wrong, you SKIPPED OVER IT.

As I said the last time, I only don't respond to a post in a debate if I legitimately miss it. Obviously you've forgotten this. In addition, I also said "It's happened before and it will happen again", which it has.

I'd like you to AGAIN respond to this and for ONCE IN YOUR LIFE admit you are wrong.

As I've also said multiple times before, I HAVE admitted I'm wrong, and on multiple occasions -- not to mention I don't see very many other people say "I was wrong" during a debate... which is a pretty ****ing natural thing (something you can't seem to figure out, despite doing it yourself). You conveniently ignore this, though, so you can try to pull out a bull**** claim on me. Whether that's your intent or not, it's what you're doing.

And guess what? This is an instance where I was wrong, and I will willingly admit it.

So tell me: are you happy? Does this make you feel better? Does this give you a higher status in life than what you had before? No? Then quit throwing temper tantrums and stop making such a goddamn big deal about it.

 

[JuicieJ]

And here we have evidence of you using selective reading. Congratulations.

 

[JuicieJ]

...You need help. That's not even a joke, you seriously need help if you're going to get that worked up over a, as you said, "minor issue".

 

[DarkestLink]

This thread is as good as dead...

 

[JuicieJ]

 

[Salem]

Fair enough. I disagree though because when presented in segments, it all feels the same to me. For example, if I were to play through the fire temple on a file with the forest temple completed and then again on a file without the forest temple completed, the change would be far too insignificant to consider a new experience. Same for the forest and water temple.

It is possible for Nintendo to design a game in which dungeon order will change the experience, but I haven't seen it. Many of you will reference LoZ, aLttP, and OoT, but what you consider varied experiences, I consider unnoticeable/irrelevant changes.

If you consider these to be irrelevant changes, then why argue against having them in future Zelda games?

 

[DarkestLink]

If you consider these to be irrelevant changes, then why argue against having them in future Zelda games?

Because the cost to gain these changes is too great for me.

 

[Ventus]

I was thinking more along the lines of still having the dungeons in a set order, but rather than just one way to get through the dungeon, there's 2 or 3. All eventually meet up in essential rooms like where you get the dungeon item, boss key, boss etc. Each of these 'paths', I guess I'll call them, will have their own puzzles to get through, their own enemies to defeat and so on. However, there's only enough keys to use one path. Therefore, in order to see everything in the temple, you have to replay the game, which is where I think you could get tremendous replay value out of this idea. So I think the dungeon order shouldn't be non-linear at all, I think that side of Zelda should stay put as is. The change in the game isn't the ability to choose which temple you wish to do first, but which way through the temple you'd like to go. So basically, it's like having two or three dungeons in one which you can choose between. It won't be like Mass Effect or anything, where you can change the plot through these decisions, you simply get a new temple experience each time you play (Well, until you've used every varying path, anyway).

Oh my... I really hope that makes sense...

I like your ideas and I can somewhat agree with them, however the point of "enough keys to use one path" is a very bad one imo. What if we start down one path and try to explore another? Will we be dead-ended? I guess a way to remedy that would be a method of buying small keys - especially considering that every small key in every Zelda ever has been completely identical to other keys from other dungeons).

But, even so, I would hate to have to do Dungeon 1 before Dungeon 2 all of the time; I personally like to deal with the hard stuff first, but the games always present bosses in such a manner that the "hard" bosses (read: later dungeon bosses) aren't actually hard since the skills we gained up until then were like a huge tutorial. So like, if I want to tackle the Spirit Temple and knock it out of the way long before the Forest Temple, I feel I should have the ability to. And the plot wouldn't have to be marred at all; just use the method of archplot/subplot and hire some decent writers for a change. Kingdom Hearts can do it. Zelda can too. [sorry if that made no sense.]