Doctorzuko
Timelord Firelord
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2015
- Location
- California
Hey, so I'm new here by the way, just signed up like 20 minutes ago. Little backstory, I'm a lifelong zelda fan and I've played and love every zelda. It's my favorite game series. Anyway, I wanted to see what a place like a popular zelda forum thought about something that's been on my mind about Zelda U. I want to critically analyze this game's design in regards to it's map size and freedom of progression. Buckle in because I have a lot to say.
The question i'm posing is whether or not an increase in map size or freedom of progression are necessarily good things. I think that one thing we should be able to agree on first is that it's a subjective opinion to begin with, and that they aren't factually proven to make someone's enjoyment of a game better. Typically these features are seen as something that is forward in game design. With map size it's often associated with improvements in what we can do with games because it DOES require better hardware and a lot more work. Without the ability to render far distances a large map just doesn't work that well. And freedom of progression, or the ability to do any level in any order, is something more associated with old games, but something we all see as something that's "better". But why?
I have to pose the question of whether or not there's truly a difference between a game that's linear and one that lets me choose which order I do what. It's like planning a vacation. In the end, the vacation is the same, but say you either are handed a schedule for which places to go and when, as opposed to choosing what order to do it in. At the end of the day, choosing doesn't really benefit you because you don't know what you'll find in any of those places. I think some would argue the charm to freedom of progression is just roaming around in a map and stumbling into something surprising, but I feel like the way they'll develop this game to still be accessible to anybody, won't dungeons still be marked on the map? I do love the idea of running into random enemies and surprising things on this large map, but nontheless I feel like based on how zelda is typically developed, dungeons will not be that.
I often wonder if it's simply the stigma of freedom that makes it appear to good to people. And I'm not saying I don't have that stigma inside of myself, where it sounds like a very appealing feature of a game. But when I actually analyze it, I can't understand why it's "good". Is it the idea of knowing you could have done something else? Or are people really so bent about being able to do what they want and will throw a fuss if they can't do the forest temple last just because they want to? Should we just accept the fact that freedom of progression is a better game design choice, or should we explain why it's so good? And does freedom of progression limit a game's narrative? With most zeldas the plot is planted in specific times and places according to which dungeon you're doing, and plot even affects the gameplay.
Taking Ocarina of Time as an example of this, the fact that link visits the forest temple first shows that he went to go check on his home village before doing anything else. It's scripted that sheik is attacked at kakariko right before the shadow temple. Gerudo valley and twinrova, ganondorf's mothers, are all introduced to you last before fighting Ganondorf. This information is purposefully hidden from you to keep you wondering the whole game before giving you a backstory on the big villain before his fight. So the question is, can all this be done in a game with freedom of progression like Between Worlds and Zelda U?
The second main thing I want to talk about as mentioned before is map size. I often wonder if I will actually dislike the giant map in Zelda U because I tend to dislike games with such huge maps that it seems to feel aimless and overly complicated to me. The idea of zelda u's huge map sounds magnificent to me, and at first thought, I want to explore and explore. But with a game that's rumored to be the size of kyoto, japan (whether or not it hits that goal is another discussion), it's hard for me to believe that this will hold my interest for the entire map. I am a zelda completionist, and the sheer thought of exploring every inch of the map gives me imaginary chills. But let me get to the point here.
Something that's been on my mind a lot lately with video game maps has been something put into my head by slightly popular games journalist Jim Sterling. Love him or hate him, the guy often brings up good points. The reason Jim Sterling's opinion has got me thinking so much about zelda u and it's map is because he recently made a video about how we need more Resident Evil 1 spencer mansions in video games. He emphasizes the relationship between the player and it's map, praising things like backtracking that we often hiss at the mention of when forgetting that it is actually a great thing when done right. The question is, will Zelda U be losing a level of charm to it's world when it's so big that you can't recognize a single location? Will the game remedy this problem with magnificent, lively hyrule towns and architecture of unforgettable design? Will Zelda U do better at a large map than large map games have been doing it, or will Zelda U fall to many of the shortcomings that these games come across by being too huge? Even the idea of it being one of the most glitchy Zelda games to date is something that bugs my mind when I think about them developing something so huge. Not that it will be any Butt Creed Unity...but what if it's just a tad less polished than we've come to expect from a Nintendo game? Is that necessarily a bad thing either? Anyway, if you want to watch that Jim Sterling video, you'll understand my thoughts and concerns on map size a lot better, and it's an interesting analysis that I highly recommend, so here's the link for that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr3OcN2qmqo#t=18s
Hopefully this wasn't the wrong place to post something like this, I really want to see what some fellow dedicated zelda fans feel about this kind of stuff. I want your opinions. If you just want to fight and argue this isn't the place, I'd like a nice discussion please. If I said something stupid, please point it out, I'm not perfect and this post was a first draft. Hardly expect anybody to actually read this entire thing, but I'm ready to talk about it if someone does!
The question i'm posing is whether or not an increase in map size or freedom of progression are necessarily good things. I think that one thing we should be able to agree on first is that it's a subjective opinion to begin with, and that they aren't factually proven to make someone's enjoyment of a game better. Typically these features are seen as something that is forward in game design. With map size it's often associated with improvements in what we can do with games because it DOES require better hardware and a lot more work. Without the ability to render far distances a large map just doesn't work that well. And freedom of progression, or the ability to do any level in any order, is something more associated with old games, but something we all see as something that's "better". But why?
I have to pose the question of whether or not there's truly a difference between a game that's linear and one that lets me choose which order I do what. It's like planning a vacation. In the end, the vacation is the same, but say you either are handed a schedule for which places to go and when, as opposed to choosing what order to do it in. At the end of the day, choosing doesn't really benefit you because you don't know what you'll find in any of those places. I think some would argue the charm to freedom of progression is just roaming around in a map and stumbling into something surprising, but I feel like the way they'll develop this game to still be accessible to anybody, won't dungeons still be marked on the map? I do love the idea of running into random enemies and surprising things on this large map, but nontheless I feel like based on how zelda is typically developed, dungeons will not be that.
I often wonder if it's simply the stigma of freedom that makes it appear to good to people. And I'm not saying I don't have that stigma inside of myself, where it sounds like a very appealing feature of a game. But when I actually analyze it, I can't understand why it's "good". Is it the idea of knowing you could have done something else? Or are people really so bent about being able to do what they want and will throw a fuss if they can't do the forest temple last just because they want to? Should we just accept the fact that freedom of progression is a better game design choice, or should we explain why it's so good? And does freedom of progression limit a game's narrative? With most zeldas the plot is planted in specific times and places according to which dungeon you're doing, and plot even affects the gameplay.
Taking Ocarina of Time as an example of this, the fact that link visits the forest temple first shows that he went to go check on his home village before doing anything else. It's scripted that sheik is attacked at kakariko right before the shadow temple. Gerudo valley and twinrova, ganondorf's mothers, are all introduced to you last before fighting Ganondorf. This information is purposefully hidden from you to keep you wondering the whole game before giving you a backstory on the big villain before his fight. So the question is, can all this be done in a game with freedom of progression like Between Worlds and Zelda U?
The second main thing I want to talk about as mentioned before is map size. I often wonder if I will actually dislike the giant map in Zelda U because I tend to dislike games with such huge maps that it seems to feel aimless and overly complicated to me. The idea of zelda u's huge map sounds magnificent to me, and at first thought, I want to explore and explore. But with a game that's rumored to be the size of kyoto, japan (whether or not it hits that goal is another discussion), it's hard for me to believe that this will hold my interest for the entire map. I am a zelda completionist, and the sheer thought of exploring every inch of the map gives me imaginary chills. But let me get to the point here.
Something that's been on my mind a lot lately with video game maps has been something put into my head by slightly popular games journalist Jim Sterling. Love him or hate him, the guy often brings up good points. The reason Jim Sterling's opinion has got me thinking so much about zelda u and it's map is because he recently made a video about how we need more Resident Evil 1 spencer mansions in video games. He emphasizes the relationship between the player and it's map, praising things like backtracking that we often hiss at the mention of when forgetting that it is actually a great thing when done right. The question is, will Zelda U be losing a level of charm to it's world when it's so big that you can't recognize a single location? Will the game remedy this problem with magnificent, lively hyrule towns and architecture of unforgettable design? Will Zelda U do better at a large map than large map games have been doing it, or will Zelda U fall to many of the shortcomings that these games come across by being too huge? Even the idea of it being one of the most glitchy Zelda games to date is something that bugs my mind when I think about them developing something so huge. Not that it will be any Butt Creed Unity...but what if it's just a tad less polished than we've come to expect from a Nintendo game? Is that necessarily a bad thing either? Anyway, if you want to watch that Jim Sterling video, you'll understand my thoughts and concerns on map size a lot better, and it's an interesting analysis that I highly recommend, so here's the link for that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr3OcN2qmqo#t=18s
Hopefully this wasn't the wrong place to post something like this, I really want to see what some fellow dedicated zelda fans feel about this kind of stuff. I want your opinions. If you just want to fight and argue this isn't the place, I'd like a nice discussion please. If I said something stupid, please point it out, I'm not perfect and this post was a first draft. Hardly expect anybody to actually read this entire thing, but I'm ready to talk about it if someone does!
