General Zelda Your Opinion on a Sparce Overworld?

[Justac00lguy]

Your Opinion on a Sparse Overworld?

So I noticed that a lot of the bad or negative comments that the game Twilight Princess generally gets, is that its overworld was largely empty and the size didn't fit the content as such. Now I don't want to get into into views on TP's overworld but I actually don't mind large sparce open areas as was the case with Twilight Princess. So with this in mind what are your opinions on an overworld that is largely sparce.

Now I know a lot of people will disregard this idea as what's the point of having an empty overworld? Well this isn't exactly my full point but I would like to bring up two, of what I think are the best examples of how to showcase how a sparce overworld could work. These two would be Shadow of the Colossus and Journey... Now these two games reached critical acclaim and are widely received to be excellent open world games, however close inspection of these games shows that the overworld never really had that much content. SotC and Journey were very sparce and one had to travel over vast lands with no true linear path to reach the next destination or plot point, a very simple feature but it worked to great effect.

Now the question is could this be implemented effectively into a Zelda game? With the likes of TWW and TP we saw a big overworld which was mostly open space rather than compact content, in my opinion I would consider these two Zelda games to be some of the only in the series to truly capture that adventure aspect. It's no lie that many people would like to see a bigger overworld, so how about we have a more open overworld that is generally sparce and nonlinear? Would you guys like to see this feature or would you rather a more compact overworld like the one seen in Skyward Sword?

 

[Starblast16]

What I like about sparce overworlds is that they usually have beautiful or breathtaking scenery and it gives me plenty of room to fight monsters.

 

[Demise_]

I'm definitely for large everworlds. Twilight Princess' one was the best one I have seen yet.

As for sparsity, we can be nearly sure we won't get a game with a gigantic overworld filled with as much content as SS's one. So it comes as granted. However, even if there was an option to have a content-filled vast overworld, it would take away the sense of exploration; what's the point of searching for a hidden cave when there are 20 other secrets on your doorstep? While scouting vast fields for hidden rewards really is exciting.

Twilight Princess was good, but it could be made better. First, it must be even bigger. TP's overworld can't really be classified as "gigantic". Second, exploration must be well-made. The spinner was an item with excellent potential for hidden tracks, yet in the whole of TP's overworld there were only two. In a way, more of them could have felt like there were tracks everywhere, so more tracks would be best implemented in a bigger overworld.

Also, the spinner itself, as an item, should be utilized much more - it was nearly as versatile as SS's Beetle, and should have been as useful as the latter. However, that's off-topic.

The quantity of secrets wouldn't need to be small. In fact, a vast overworld easily could - and should - contain as much, or more, content than SS (and, of course, all the "content" in SS that is just puzzles and navigational challenges would be hidden caves, secret devices and stuff like that). The difference would be in the means of getting all these secrets - solving a navigational challenge in an SS-like game, or hunting for treasure across vast fields on horseback in a game with a vaster overworld. Personally, I would much prefer the second.

 

[ihateghirahim]

I enjoyed how it added a vastness to the game. In fact, OoT had a surprisingly sparse field; though some seem to forget. I don't need my overworld to be completely filled with things to do. The sheer vastness and a few hidden caves are all you really need. If there are too many things, you lose the exploration of Zelda and the feeling of being lost in the world. Those form a significant part of Zelda's fun.

Anyway, the biggest risk is that Nintendo will listen to these people and put all their effort into filling a massive overworld, and they would thus fail to put the proper time and effort into the rest of the game.

Maybe that's why WW had so few dungeons?

 

[Spirit]

I love sparse overworlds, they have more of an imersive quality for me, the world we live in is often sparse with not much going on, a world like that in a game gives me a sense of grandiose adventure and they can be soooooo beautiful just like TP and SotC. Spare overworld feel like natural roaming grounds and let me think that i'm exploring rather than games with cluttered overworlds that just have too much emphasis on getting through one bit to get to the next bit by way of some unnatural and obviously designed portion of land. That kind of thing bugs me.

So yeah spares overworlds are the best kinds of overworlds IMO

 

[JuicieJ]

Sparse overworlds can be done well... but they're just not Zelda's style. A Zelda overworld is supposed to be packed and dense, filled to the brim with content. Zelda's all about the gameplay -- this is not opinion, developers have said this themselves -- so having an overworld where gameplay is practically absent makes no sense. It contradicts the very foundation of Zelda's essence. This is different for the games mentioned in the OP (Shadow of the Colossus, Journey) because their purpose is the exact opposite. These overworlds are all about the sight-seeing, all about the awe. They don't need to be crammed with content. That's not to say it would hurt them, just as more beauty wouldn't hurt Zelda's overworlds, but the way the games are built doesn't require lots of content. The way Zelda's overworlds are built (or at least are supposed to be built) do.

This is why I love most of the surface portions in Skyward Sword (most of them). They returned to being gameplay spaces like in A Link to the Past and The Minish Cap. No, they didn't capture the exploration element as well as they did, so it was only a step in the right direction rather than coming full circle, but it was a step nonetheless, so I have to give it props for that. As for things like the Great Sea, Sky, and Twilight Princess's overworld... yeah, I can't really say they're fit for a Zelda game, even if they have SOME good features.

So, in short, I strongly believe that Zelda should stay away from large areas of emptiness in its overworlds. Obviously there needs to be some breathing room, which is one area where modern Zelda has typically failed (even Twilight Princess due to its massively linear design), but this can easily coincide with content. Just ask A Link to the Past and The Minish Cap.

 

[Justac00lguy]

Sparse overworlds can be done well... but they're just not Zelda's style. A Zelda overworld is supposed to be packed and dense, filled to the brim with content. Zelda's all about the gameplay -- this is not opinion

I don't get your statement, saying Zelda is all about gameplay may be the case with a few but you have to take into account that it's the way the player views the game that counts. A game could be focused mainly on gameplay but it may not be the key reason as to why people play it. There is no supposed to be, saying this limits a game as to what it can be, I have never once heard that a Zelda had to fit a certain model, this is all a matter of your preference.

 

[DarkestLink]

I don't care so long as we have a decent warp system (TP) and enemies to fight (TP, PH and ST). But when there's no combat (tWW) and a bad warp system (tWW and ST), it's annoying.

SS also had little combat and no warping, but getting out of the sky was so quick that I really didn't care.

 

[JuicieJ]

I don't get your statement, saying Zelda is all about gameplay may be the case with a few but you have to take into account that it's the way the player views the game that counts. A game could be focused mainly on gameplay but it may not be the key reason as to why people play it. There is no supposed to be, saying this limits a game as to what it can be, I have never once heard that a Zelda had to fit a certain model, this is all a matter of your preference.

I never said gameplay is the be all, end all means as to why everyone plays Zelda. I said that it's what developers focus on the most. If a series is supposed to be gameplay-focused, then an overworld that's lacking in gameplay (Great Sea, TP's Hyrule Field, PH's ocean, the Spirit Tracks, the Sky) is by default going against the entire premise. Gameplay-oriented overworlds may not be what every single fan is looking for, but personal preferences and a series' best interest are two different things.

SS also had little combat

Wait, what? Seriously? Dude, Skyward Sword is the most combat-focused game in the entire series, even more than Twilight Princess.

 

[DarkestLink]

Wait, what? Seriously? Dude, Skyward Sword is the most combat-focused game in the entire series, even more than Twilight Princess.

The Loftwing had no combat.

 

[JuicieJ]

The Loftwing had no combat.

Aaaaaaaaaaand? SS still had much more of an emphasis on the combat.

 

[Ventus]

No. We've seen sparse overworlds in Zelda before and they simply do not deliver. I understand evoking emotions simply out of the beauty of the world, but SotC had a very realistic/fantasy blend. Zelda games are almost always of the fantasy type in art style, and this hinders terrain enjoyment in my opinion. I do not draw out the same emotions from SotC/ICO as I do Zelda thanks to the widley different art styles. So...no.

The Loftwing had no combat.

Calling the Sky even *part* of the overworld in SS is a huge no-no.

 

[Random Person]

Well, I've never played Journey but there's a difference between Zelda games and SotC in that one is known for letting you explore and the other is about as linear as a game can get. Zelda is also a game about secrets while SotC is simply about defeating your adversary. This isn't to say I hate either game's overworld, but I don't feel one can justify the faults of TP simply because SotC had a similar overworld when the games were trying to accomplish two different things.

I myself do not mind giant overworlds in Zelda as long as there is plenty to discover. I know people disagree, but I felt WW and TP were chalk full of content. Having lots of space does give people the right to say that the secret to land ratio is less than previous games, but I don't feel that takes away from the overall game. All it does is give the player a greater chance at finding nothing when exploring, and considering when you explore you're not necessarily entitled to finding something, I don't count this as a negative. It isn't like the massive Zelda overworlds are completely baron like SotC. TP had poes, golden bugs, hidden caves, underground grottoes in a good chunk of it's overworld.

And then there's the plus that massive overworlds give the game that mini overworlds don't do as well, and that is atmosphere. IMO, MM has the best overall overworld, but I don't think it does nearly a good a job as capturing the land like WW and TP did. When I get to ride my horse, or sail my sail over massive amounts of space, I feel so much more free and adventurous. It gives me more time to look around and say "ooh, what's that!?!" Not to mention just how beautiful massive lands tend to appear. I chose sailing over warping in WW simply because I wanted to enjoy the scenery coupled with the atmospheric music; one of my greatest pleasures in TP was just going to Lake Hylia and watching the sun set.

I'm not saying that smaller overworlds are bad, or even worse than large ones for the Zelda series, but the critiques about massive Zelda overworlds do not hold up imo. There's just something embracing about being given so much space to experience. Chances are, it's going to be a bit easier to come across emptiness, but exploring without the chance of finding nothing isn't exploring, it's being led. IMO, Zelda massive overworlds' pros outweigh their cons by a longshot.

 

[DarkestLink]

Aaaaaaaaaaand? SS still had much more of an emphasis on the combat.

...We're not talking about the game. We're talking about the overworld. In SS's case, the sky.

 

[Justac00lguy]

I never said gameplay is the be all, end all means as to why everyone plays Zelda. I said that it's what developers focus on the most. If a series is supposed to be gameplay-focused, then an overworld that's lacking in gameplay (Great Sea, TP's Hyrule Field, PH's ocean, the Spirit Tracks, the Sky) is by default going against the entire premise. Gameplay-oriented overworlds may not be what every single fan is looking for, but personal preferences and a series' best interest are two different things.

Well I never quite said that however a developer can focus on gameplay, in fact most developers focus on gameplay, in a sense this is one of the most important aspects of any game as it is essentially the fundamentals of how a game works.

Zelda started from Miyamoto wanting to create an adventure game, inspired from his experiences from his younger years. So in a way you could say that the series started from being all about the adventure, I would certainly like to see a larger overworld that we can explore, not an overworld were everything is crammed into one space. Not only would this decrease the linear aspect over Zelda games as well as exploration but it would increase the grandeur of the games. So like a lot of you guys have stated I would also love a sparce overworld =)