Breath of the Wild Zelda Wii U & Non-Linearity

[LegendofLex]

We now know that one of the central innovations for Zelda Wii U is going to be non-linearity. But what exactly does that mean? I did some looking over the past, and I think I've found the answer...

When Eiji Aonuma announced two of the central features that the Zelda team is preparing for Zelda Wii U, I was absolutely floored to hear that non-linear game progression made the cut. I started my journey through the series with Ocarina of Time, and one of the things that keeps me coming back to the game to this day is just how malleable the experience is in its second half – you can move straight from getting the Hookshot to the Fire Temple if you wish, instead of following the suggested path and returning to the Lost Woods.

After finally discovering the original NES games and A Link to the Past years later, I was able to discover the full value of that richer, more endlessly replayable open-ended and exploration-driven kind of experience. I may be almost 25 years late to the party, but I now understand that that feeling of open-ended adventure with unlimited player possibilities isn’t just about dungeon order: it’s part of the heart and soul of The Legend of Zelda.

Click to read more: Zelda Wii U: Non-Linearity is More Than Just Dungeon Order, Has to be the Heart and Soul of the Game | GenGAME

Check out the full article, then let me know what you think. What does Zelda need to do to truly live up to the promise of a non-linear adventure?

 

[Shadao]

I'm thinking of Skyward Sword's Overworld except it's much bigger and more interconnected, filled with secret paths and mazes down every corner. I felt that Skyward Sword did a great job of making the province more deeper and I want them to build from that, like Super Metroid in a sense. As to make the dungeons and quests more non-linear, I believe that sets of items you must collect (like the Ocarina of Time's stones and medellions) should have the option of which order you want to take. Of course that means that the dungeons couldn't take use of the items puzzles as much as linear games so I recommend that they can have us revisit dungeons to find new secret areas by using new items we obtain later in the game (Like the Temple of the Ocean King expect more fun and less boring).

 

[DarkestLink]

If there's a game series that needs to get back to non-linearity, it's Mario, not Zelda.

 

[Ventus]

All I can say, Lex, is that I totally agree with your article, every last bit of it. What really strikes a nice tone with me is this:

The items you find as you travel aren’t so much the keys to reaching new regions and areas, as they have been in some of the more recent games, but tools for helping you find hidden secrets and treasures and get around more efficiently.

If there's anything I'd like to see, it's putting items back in their place. They aren't keys to keyholes; they're aids to get us around town a bit easier. I mean, sure, a few items might be required to reach a next plot based area, but that's easily done by having plot "segments", wherein the first three dungeons you complete are "part A", the next three are "part B", the next 3 "part C", the next 3 "part D", and the final dungeon which requires plot coupons is "part E". Oh, rambling. Anyway yeah, items =/= keys to keyholes, they're merely gameplay enhancers/gameplay diversity-givers.

But, the part that I'm a bit confused with is this headline:

Items should be mostly useful, rarely forced

I'm not really one of these people, but many folks will believe the following to be true: if an item isn't given a specific, frequent usage, it is completely useless. I can see where they're coming from too; in Skyward Sword bombs and arrows COULD be used to easily take down Bokoblins (some of the most annoying foes in the game), but why should I use them when the sword is a multi-trick pony? If I'm not compelled to use an item -- it's pretty much optional -- then I most likely will not. How will Nintendo do away with the keyhole system of items? I don't know. But I don't think making EVERY item optional on EVERY foe is conducive to great items.

 

[JuicieJ]

All I can say, Lex, is that I totally agree with your article, every last bit of it. What really strikes a nice tone with me is this:

If there's anything I'd like to see, it's putting items back in their place. They aren't keys to keyholes; they're aids to get us around town a bit easier. I mean, sure, a few items might be required to reach a next plot based area, but that's easily done by having plot "segments", wherein the first three dungeons you complete are "part A", the next three are "part B", the next 3 "part C", the next 3 "part D", and the final dungeon which requires plot coupons is "part E". Oh, rambling. Anyway yeah, items =/= keys to keyholes, they're merely gameplay enhancers/gameplay diversity-givers.

But, the part that I'm a bit confused with is this headline:

I'm not really one of these people, but many folks will believe the following to be true: if an item isn't given a specific, frequent usage, it is completely useless. I can see where they're coming from too; in Skyward Sword bombs and arrows COULD be used to easily take down Bokoblins (some of the most annoying foes in the game), but why should I use them when the sword is a multi-trick pony? If I'm not compelled to use an item -- it's pretty much optional -- then I most likely will not. How will Nintendo do away with the keyhole system of items? I don't know. But I don't think making EVERY item optional on EVERY foe is conducive to great items.

So items should be used to create diversity, enhance the gameplay, and not be used as keys to keyholes, yet we should be forced to use an item on enemies? That's contradictory. Being forced to use an item to defeat an enemy is entering a key into a keyhole. Items should be BENEFICIAL in taking down foes (like you described with Skyward Sword), not mandatory.

 

[1upmuffin]

Agreed with the article until "dialogue trees, decision-driven story branches". Please, no. I do not want dialogue trees in Zelda, and I don't think a branching story would be good either in a game with so much history, there should be one story, not many versions of the story like in Mass Effect.

 

[Cfrock]

I don't get why everyone is taking 'We are having a think about dungeon order' as confirmation that ZeldaU will be totally non-linear. I get that is suggests non-linearity but it was never direct and it was never even hinted at what such thinking was going to lead to. I mean, he specifically said "dungeon order" so why then did everyone start talking about overworlds and quests? Do you not think it's jumping the gun a bit to say that ZeldaU is definitely going to be a non-linear experience, considering Aonuma never said that?

Anyway, I don't see any need for Zelda to go back to a much more non-linear style. Some degree of non-linearity, like with Ocarina of Time's Sage Temples or Skyward Sword's Song of the Hero Quest would be good and allow for some freedom, but linearity has its advantages and has a place in Zelda. Personally, I'd prefer a mix rather than a completely non-linear adventure. But we'll wait and see what the future holds.

If there's a game series that needs to get back to non-linearity, it's Mario, not Zelda.

Mario was non-linear?

 

[Deeds]

If there's a game series that needs to get back to non-linearity, it's Mario, not Zelda.

Mario has never been non-linear, so there's nothing for it to get back to, in terms of linearity. I guess whether people want Zelda to be linear or not is their opinion, but normally when someone gives an opinion, there's some reasoning behind it.
Game developers now-a-days are getting really stuck in terms of how user-friendly their game is, one of them being Zelda. When I play a game, I want to feel like if I go one way, I need to come back and go the other way, otherwise I'd feel overblown with routes I could take. I don't want to feel like I'm doing the right thing for the whole game, because that makes finishing it not as satisfying. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[1upmuffin]

Mario has never been non-linear, so there's nothing for it to get back to, in terms of linearity. I guess whether people want Zelda to be linear or not is their opinion, but normally when someone gives an opinion, there's some reasoning behind it.
Game developers now-a-days are getting really stuck in terms of how user-friendly their game is, one of them being Zelda. When I play a game, I want to feel like if I go one way, I need to come back and go the other way, otherwise I'd feel overblown with routes I could take. I don't want to feel like I'm doing the right thing for the whole game, because that makes finishing it not as satisfying. That's my opinion, anyway.

I think he was referring to Mario 64 and how you could get the stars in a level in pretty much any order you wanted, and how you had a choice of levels on each floor.

 

[DarkestLink]

Mario was non-linear?

SM64

Mario has never been non-linear

SM64

I think he was referring to Mario 64 and how you could get the stars in a level in pretty much any order you wanted, and how you had a choice of levels on each floor.

There were also the worlds that were non-linear. Whereas our more recent SMG worlds are as linear as SM3DL. And, unlike Zelda, the non-linearity worked in Mario's favor. There's simply no reason for Mario to be linear. It has no upgrades or story to account for and it does well with freedom.

 

[Ventus]

but linearity has its advantages and has a place in Zelda. Personally, I'd prefer a mix rather than a completely non-linear adventure. But we'll wait and see what the future holds.

What advantages are these? All I can count is having a static, one-way tunnel to the same dream ending we typically have. This gets boring personally, but it's easier that way because new players and seasoned players alike can keep on a road to the game's end.

Mario was non-linear?

Well, Super Mario 64 was, to a degree.

 

[The Wanderer]

I agree with almost everything in your article, LegendofLex. There are really only two points of contention I would bring up, and they're relatively small ones.

First is enemy progression. The way you described it is definitely a step in the right direction, but it doesn't quite feel like home to me. After all, even if you tackle the harder areas first, you're stuck with the easy areas last, which is a bit anticlimactic and still creates a linear vibe. This was the way the original Zelda did it, but there may be a better alternative. I'm thinking enemies that scale up in difficulty as you progress through the game, as in "Beating three dungeons makes enemies ascend to the blue form, beating three more dungeons makes enemies ascend to the green form," etc.. There should still probably be a way to scale the difficulty back down at a certain point, but this approach seems a little more inclusive.

The other point of contention is a branching storyline, which I am leery of simply because it throws the already-confusing Zelda timeline into further jeopardy. I'm not particularly against it, but I'm leery of making the confusing Zelda series even less sensible. I am all for multiple dialogue options, however; that should be part of what defines Link. Skyward Sword got the ball rolling, and it would be good to capitalize on that. It would increase the "link" between player and avatar if they could select their own responses. Not voiced, of course, dialogue only, but it would help.

Other than that, Nintendo should really consider everything you've said. Zelda was founded on non-linearity, so it's time to get back to it with a passion.

 

[MW7]

Super Mario Sunshine was somewhat nonlinear as well- with precise jumps you could do level 7 first even. There was also plenty of freedom in choosing what to do next. Super Mario 64 was definitely more nonlinear though.

The section of the article that most stuck out to me was the part about items being useful and rarely forced. This is something I enjoyed about earlier games that has caused me some frustration recently. In Legend of Zelda the majority of the time you didn't even have to collect a dungeon item- you only needed the bow, raft, ladder, silver arrow, and whistle to beat the game out of the twelve items obtained within dungeons. Ocarina of Time (played without glitches) only allows the player to skip the Lens of Truth along with several items obtained in the overworld. Skyward Sword honestly made me mad though in one instance. My nonlinear mentality led me to think about using a guardian potion plus in order to skip the fireshield earrings, but the game actually prevents you from doing this.

What I want is for the game designers to stop throwing pointless barriers around. This problem has been around a while. The boulders blocking Zora's River in Ocarina of Time are the best example of a totally pointless boundary IMO. As a player you know that you need to collect two more spiritual stones and the order definitely shouldn't matter at all within the context of the story. You don't even need bombs Inside Jabu Jabu, and the boomerang would have actually been somewhat convenient to have in Dodongo's Cavern. I really wish the series hasn't included things like this, but it's gotten much worse. IMO Skyward Sword was an improvement over Twilight Princess in terms of not having quite as many pointless restrictions, but there was much work left to do.

 

[LegendofLex]

If there's a game series that needs to get back to non-linearity, it's Mario, not Zelda.

I agree to an extent. There need to be more "open-world" style 3D field levels in future Mario games, and branching pathways in the world map need to be more substantial than they were in NSMBU, but the evidence seems clear that more people have a preference for the tighter, more linear Mario level design.

Agreed with the article until "dialogue trees, decision-driven story branches". Please, no. I do not want dialogue trees in Zelda, and I don't think a branching story would be good either in a game with so much history, there should be one story, not many versions of the story like in Mass Effect.

By "dialogue trees," I mostly mean "players can access more flavor text/characterization by prodding NPCs for more info." Not necessarily over-the-top dialogue trees that the story really depends upon.

And by "decision-driven story branches," I mostly mean MM-style choices. Not Mass Effect-style choices.

First is enemy progression. The way you described it is definitely a step in the right direction, but it doesn't quite feel like home to me. After all, even if you tackle the harder areas first, you're stuck with the easy areas last, which is a bit anticlimactic and still creates a linear vibe. This was the way the original Zelda did it, but there may be a better alternative. I'm thinking enemies that scale up in difficulty as you progress through the game, as in "Beating three dungeons makes enemies ascend to the blue form, beating three more dungeons makes enemies ascend to the green form," etc.. There should still probably be a way to scale the difficulty back down at a certain point, but this approach seems a little more inclusive.

I'd actually thought about this, too, but I didn't really feel it was worth dedicating a lot of time to in the article. I had a deadline to meet!

Although, I wouldn't have enemies get boosts based on how many levels you beat, but rather which levels you beat. Beating level three should adjust the enemies so that common enemies in "lower-level" areas become the common enemies from the level three area. The enemies could scale to around the level of the furthest dungeon you've cleared.

The other point of contention is a branching storyline, which I am leery of simply because it throws the already-confusing Zelda timeline into further jeopardy. I'm not particularly against it, but I'm leery of making the confusing Zelda series even less sensible. I am all for multiple dialogue options, however; that should be part of what defines Link. Skyward Sword got the ball rolling, and it would be good to capitalize on that. It would increase the "link" between player and avatar if they could select their own responses. Not voiced, of course, dialogue only, but it would help.

As I told 1upmuffin, I wouldn't want a game that goes over-the-top with a branching story, either. I just think that having choice-consequence chains like Majora's Mask would be really neat, and in a more "traditional" Zelda it'd probably be much more manageable and less overwhelming. Perhaps I should go back and clarify this in the actual article, too.

Other than that, Nintendo should really consider everything you've said. Zelda was founded on non-linearity, so it's time to get back to it with a passion.

Thanks. =)

 

[Ventus]

Although, I wouldn't have enemies get boosts based on how many levels you beat, but rather which levels you beat. Beating level three should adjust the enemies so that common enemies in "lower-level" areas become the common enemies from the level three area. The enemies could scale to around the level of the furthest dungeon you've cleared.

That's all fair and well, but I'm not sure if you mean having static enemy types for "level 3" that would replace the static enemy types of "level 1", or if the enemies in "level 1" would simply receive strength/defense/othermultipliers boosts based upon those of "level 3".

If you mean the former, I would dislike this because there wouldn't be room for enemy racial diversity nor enemy AI diversity. If the you mean the latter, I have no qualms.