General Zelda Your Opinion on a Sparce Overworld?

[DarkLink7]

I like the bigger overworlds. I mean, in TP, it was fun to ride or run around Hyrule, and there were hidden caves and passages, you just have to look. Sparse overworlds give some sense of adventure, and you can practically do whatever the heck you want. In SS, I thought that the regions were okay, still with that adventure, but not really any secrets. In WW, I liked discovering all the islands, another adventure where you can stray off the beaten path and take a break, but still have something to do. In SS, you can't do that. There's not enough to do to waste time. In sparse, big overworlds, its easy to take a break.

 

[JuicieJ]

I like the bigger overworlds. I mean, in TP, it was fun to ride or run around Hyrule, and there were hidden caves and passages, you just have to look. Sparse overworlds give some sense of adventure, and you can practically do whatever the heck you want. In SS, I thought that the regions were okay, still with that adventure, but not really any secrets. In WW, I liked discovering all the islands, another adventure where you can stray off the beaten path and take a break, but still have something to do. In SS, you can't do that. There's not enough to do to waste time. In sparse, big overworlds, its easy to take a break.

Wait, I'm confused. Oerworlds with largely empty spaces, meaning literally no content for large stretches of areas, have more to do and more secrets to find than a dense and layered overworld with something to do around every corner? That... literally makes no sense. Less content automatically means less to do, whether it be across the entire overworld or within certain stretches, which SS beats out TWW and TP in both regards. Granted TWW has more exploration than both TP and SS combined in the sense that the entire world is seamless and full of open space, but it's severely watered-down because the content is dwarfed by sheer size of the Great Sea and getting from place to place is virtually effortless.

Now I'm not saying SS's overworld was perfect by any means, nor am I saying it was even close to what a Zelda overworld should be. Far from it, in fact. The Sky was mostly barren, much like the TWW and TP's overworlds were, and the surface portions, while an improvement, were still linear and corridorish. I was just merely pointing out that there's less gameplay to be had in TWW and TP's overworlds as compared to SS's.

In all reality, if there's any game to point to when making this kind of comparison to TWW and TP's overworlds, it's ALttP. It provides an immense sense of adventure without being sparse by any stretch of the imagination, and it really seems like a lot of people tend to overlook that here at ZD. It's almost like people have the mentality that wide open spaces with nothing noteworthy in them means more space to roam, thereby meaning more/better exploration... which is proven utterly false by the three previously mentioned games (ALttP, TWW, TP).

 

[Justac00lguy]

Wait, I'm confused. Oerworlds with largely empty spaces, meaning literally no content for large stretches of areas, have more to do and more secrets to find than a dense and layered overworld with something to do around every corner? That... literally makes no sense. Less content automatically means less to do, whether it be across the entire overworld or within certain stretches, which SS beats out TWW and TP in both regards. Granted TWW has more exploration than both TP and SS combined in the sense that the entire world is seamless and full of open space, but it's severely watered-down because the content is dwarfed by sheer size of the Great Sea and getting from place to place is virtually effortless.

Now I'm not saying SS's overworld was perfect by any means, nor am I saying it was even close to what a Zelda overworld should be. Far from it, in fact. The Sky was mostly barren, much like the TWW and TP's overworlds were, and the surface portions, while an improvement, were still linear and corridorish. I was just merely pointing out that there's less gameplay to be had in TWW and TP's overworlds as compared to SS's.

In all reality, if there's any game to point to when making this kind of comparison to TWW and TP's overworlds, it's ALttP. It provides an immense sense of adventure without being sparse by any stretch of the imagination, and it really seems like a lot of people tend to overlook that here at ZD. It's almost like people have the mentality that wide open spaces with nothing noteworthy in them means more space to roam, thereby meaning more/better exploration... which is proven utterly false by the three previously mentioned games (ALttP, TWW, TP).

I think the perfect overworld is one that has differentiation between large open areas that allow room to explore and areas filled with content or high dense areas, like the one seen in Skyward Sword. If Skyward Sword had more room to breath and explore it could have had a great overworld, of course having stuff to do and find is important as what's the point if an overworld has nothing to do? However if an overworld is sparce, that would leave more to explore, less linear aspects Etcetera.

Having so called provinces similar to the ones we seen in SS but between them we had large open areas, like seen in Shadow of the Colossus, then it would provide high content and gameplay combined with a more realistic scale of a world as well exploration.

 

[DarkLink7]

Wait, I'm confused. Oerworlds with largely empty spaces, meaning literally no content for large stretches of areas, have more to do and more secrets to find than a dense and layered overworld with something to do around every corner?

Did I say that? No. I merely said that they had things like that. Poe caves, for example, and the spinner-gorge. and all those islands and such. That's all I meant.

 

[Demise_]

Wait, I'm confused. Oerworlds with largely empty spaces, meaning literally no content for large stretches of areas, have more to do and more secrets to find than a dense and layered overworld with something to do around every corner? That... literally makes no sense. Less content automatically means less to do.

The questions is not about quantity, but about density. Before I state my argument, I must say that I'm talking about what would be a very good vast overworld, and that TP is not perfect; I'm not using it as an example.
Now, my argument is that a really vast overworld, like Skyrim's one, for example, has much more content than SS's overworld (for example). I haven't played Skyrim much, but I'm certain of that. Now I'm not telling Nintendo to spend 5 years making a gigantic overworld that looks good, and has stuff to do, and then either have us wait 10 years for the whole game or rush all the other areas and aspects of the game, but on even on a smaller scale, it would still work. Imagine an overworld 3x bigger than TP's, with about the same density of content - it would have at least as much stuff to do as SS's overworld, and probably more.
The difference is in how you find all the secrets; in a tight overworld, it's mostly a navigational challenge, while in a vast one, it's more like riding on Epona across vast fields, looking out for caves and secrets as you go. Personally, I much prefer the latter. As someone else said, "if there are secret and stuff around every corner, it's not adventuring anymore - it's walking along a corridor past corners. You should search secrets out, find hidden grottos and treasure chest - basically, you should go on an adventure." I think I heavily rephrased it, but it's the idea that's important.

All that said, there should still be navigational areas. TP attempted to do this with places like DM - which ended up being just a walk up a mountain, with a bit of help from catapulting Gorons - and the end of Gerudo Desert, with the bulblin village. However, there should definitely be more of those - where they make sense, that is. In a way, there should be a "field" overworld, where you explore for sidequests and which you can skip by warping if you don't like travel, and a "quest" overworld, where you would go for the main story, which would be like SS's overworld. In fact, if SS has a central vast Hyrule Field, it would be very close to a near-perfect (in my opinion) overworld.

In all reality, if there's any game to point to when making this kind of comparison to TWW and TP's overworlds, it's ALttP. It provides an immense sense of adventure without being sparse by any stretch of the imagination, and it really seems like a lot of people tend to overlook that here at ZD.

I never use Alttp as an example because I never played it. I suppose a lot of newer gamers here haven't either, as it's not very easy to get nowadays.

 

[snakeoiltanker]

Im not so much for Jucies Nazi POV on SS. but i must say that ALttP did very well with a large (dual) overworld, that was PACKED with content but didnt feel like too much. Most of the secrets you came by, you couldnt even touch till later in the game. i think ITEMs are the key to balancing an overworld packed with content. I loved TP it felt right to me. SS would have been fine if the areas were not segmented. Also i think more items and whatnot should be out in the overworld. im so tired of finding a secret everywhere i go, and getting nothing but rupees (TWW and SS)

I realize a lot of people have not played ALttP cuz Zelda really got started it seems (here at ZD) when everything went 3D. but then again MC came out after all that, and if you ask me, i think that overworld is just as fun as ALttP, minus the fact that everything is pretty easy to figure out compared to the old relentless titles! So if we talk about just 3D titles i think we should find a happy medium.

I think SS would have been great in the overworld had it not been segmented. So far the vast area of the great sea has been cool to me, but frustrated i dont have a good warp system yet. i'm not done with the game yet, and think that Prick Frog in the cyclone is the key to all that, but im not there yet so the great sea is a lil TOO open for me! TP seemed pretty balanced and i dont see what the fuss is about! Heres what i think

give us a huge over world, pack as much as you can without making it "LOOK" cluttered, space things out by requiring you to have certain items to progress to those secrets and BAM you got a perfect overworld! I miss things like ALttP where you get an item, find out its use and think "dude i passed an area i can use this as soon as i started the game, let me go walk the land for a while now that i have some items and see what i come up with" three hours later you have 4 more hearts, a ton of rupees and hopfully a couple new items! Long Story short, we can both be happy here by spacing the time you can reach these secret areas with ITEMS!

 

[JuicieJ]

I think the perfect overworld is one that has differentiation between large open areas that allow room to explore and areas filled with content or high dense areas, like the one seen in Skyward Sword. If Skyward Sword had more room to breath and explore it could have had a great overworld, of course having stuff to do and find is important as what's the point if an overworld has nothing to do? However if an overworld is sparce, that would leave more to explore, less linear aspects Etcetera.

But... I went over this in the post you responded to. ALttP had both room to explore & dense areas, and sparse doesn't automatically equal more room to explore, TP being proof of that.

Having so called provinces similar to the ones we seen in SS but between them we had large open areas, like seen in Shadow of the Colossus, then it would provide high content and gameplay combined with a more realistic scale of a world as well exploration.

It would also have essentially been ALttP's overworld in 3D.

@Demise_: Fair enough.

 

[Petman1325]

I personally enjoy large overworlds, especially when you get faster "vehicles" that let you see the beauty of the world quickly pass you by, but one thing I don't like about them is when they feel empty with nothing in them.

One of my things with Twilight Princess is that it looks gorgeous, I love it, but there just isn't that much to do there. In Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time, while the overworlds might be larger, there are at least things to do and hidden objects to find. In Majora's Mask, the overworld is tiny, but it is packed with tons of things to do, especially as you progress through the game and collect all the masks and items that would make collecting those items more accessible.

There is also Legend of Zelda and A Link to the Past. These are the best overworlds in my opinion since there are enemies on every screen that don't completely overwhelm you (unless you try to sequence break), there's plenty of hidden minigames and items within the walls and trees of the land, and it has a great sense of scale without being overly large.

If you want to get out of Zelda games to show a good template, look at The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. The overworld isn't too big, but there are tons of things to uncover and find as you go through various quests and throughout the plot. If the Zelda series could adopt this mechanic a bit more, then I would love the overworlds much more than I currently do.

 

[HylianHero]

Wow, the sparse, large Overworld v. the compact, dense Overworld is such a debated issue in the Zelda community

I really, really liked TP's Overworld with the vast Hyrule Field system. It had a good amount of enemies, had good warp functions but was still fun and easy to traverse on Epona or on foot, and a great amount of hidden things.

I mean look at this map:

Spoiler

Look how much stuff there is in the Overworld. It was great and I loved it.

 

[A Link In Time]

It's difficult to provide a clear cut response to the thread question. It depends.

Zelda has worked well with both sparse and dense overworlds. A Link to the Past perfected the dichotomy of the two and Majora's Mask is the only installments to transition this blend to the 3D world.

Sparse overworlds worked well with Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess because the central area-Hyrule Field-offered a grand scope. It wasn't so much about completing sidequests, locating hidden treasure chests, or fighting enemies but taking in the sights and sounds-staring into the distance at Goron Mountain or Zora's Domain.

The Wind Waker and Skyward Sword are different cases entirely. The system Nintendo implemented worked fairly well for that specific games. The Great Sea and Sky, respectively, were meant to function as substitutes for Hyrule Field but failed to convey that same sense of grandeur. They're very mundane filler areas. Noting the tedious travel in The Wind Waker, Nintendo cut Loftwing flying to a bare minimum. In an homage to series roots-as most of the game was-Skyward Sword pitted players against a larger number of enemies and puzzles in a condensed realm. The overworld itself was good but lacked a great variety of areas. Forest, volcano, and desert are standard fare. Nintendo was overly cautious in creating Skyward Sword.

Every game needs to implement an overworld which best suits its purposes. Besides providing worthwhile game experiences, Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess served as hardware showcases. Nintendo came out and showed players what its new system brought to the table. A game like Skyward Sword, on the other hand, opted to focus on motion control and diminishing the difference between dungeon and overworld.

Would an overworld like Shadow of the Colossus's or Journey's work for Zelda? No. Zelda isn't a game like Monster Hunter where the player is bent on finding some large creature and slaughtering it. I enjoy those games too and boss battles have always held a special place in my heart, but Zelda has always been a mix of action and strategy. Eliminating one of those halves creates a different experience entirely. Ninty should most certainly experiment in new realms in the future but that's better suited for a fresh AAA experience which many have been complaining the Big N has been lacking as of late.

 

[JuicieJ]

Look how much stuff there is in the Overworld. It was great and I loved it.

Take another look at how much empty space and hallways there are.

 

[HylianHero]

Take another look at how much empty space and hallways there are.

That's not a bad thing, it just spread it's secrets out a little more. Gave you more space to be epic and stuff

 

[Ventus]

That's not a bad thing, it just spread it's secrets out a little more. Gave you more space to be epic and stuff

I'd argue that it IS a bad thing - nothing to do in the overworld bar a couple "secrets" means many lull periods when trying to get from point A to point XYZ.

Hmm...going along with that, when there ARE secrets spread across a hypothetically sparse overworld, they need to be worthwhile. This means the game difficulty needs to be VERY curved without the secrets/upgrades. Otherwise it will end up as "2EZ" and people will continue to attack it as they did/do Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword. I feel a more content-heavy overworld could get away with being 2EZ, like OoT/MM.

 

[DuelMark]

I loved the overworld of Twilight Princess and The Wind Waker. I never really get why people are against them, I thought it was cool, it was big, it looked beautiful and it felt like a real place.

 

[HylianHero]

I'd argue that it IS a bad thing - nothing to do in the overworld bar a couple "secrets" means many lull periods when trying to get from point A to point XYZ.

Hmm...going along with that, when there ARE secrets spread across a hypothetically sparse overworld, they need to be worthwhile. This means the game difficulty needs to be VERY curved without the secrets/upgrades. Otherwise it will end up as "2EZ" and people will continue to attack it as they did/do Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword. I feel a more content-heavy overworld could get away with being 2EZ, like OoT/MM.

I think you guys are missing the point of the picture so I'll show you it again:

Spoiler

The point is the overworld may have been big, but it had a ton of stuff, it was just more spread out. Again, LOOK at the map and tell me there weren't secrets and stuff in the TP overworld.

I do however, have to agree with you Ventus on the difficulty curve, but that's off topic.