Support NeoGAF

[robertsan21]

I wish the world map was all black when you first start the game and it gets opened up as you move across the map. you have no idea whats a head of you.

damn top page post!

 

[Skittzo0413]

Something I haven't seen mentioned much is that on the game map we've seen, every "area" even inside the plateau region has a unique name, like Hopper Pond, Mount Hylia, The Forest of Spirits...

This shows me two things:

1. They are trying very hard to create actual memorable areas similar to OoT, where we (I anyway) can remember specifically the exact layout of Zora's river for example.

2. They are filling every area in the game with a specific purpose. Some of those areas may be pockets of emptiness, sure, but they will likely have names that tie into the story or lore, or otherwise give you some hint of what that area represents.

This is unlike something like Skyrim, where you have the names of towns/dungeons/caves and a few names detailing the larger regions in this game, but you don't have every specific area, pond, forest, mountain show a specific name.

It really helps make the world feel real and handcrafted, rather than made with a landscape generator.

 

[Firemind]

The difference between this game's occasional empty locations and the empty locations of the last game that bore me (Uncharted 4) is as follows:
1) Zelda lets you literally go/climb anywhere. U4 has invisible walls and unclimbable surfaces everywhere, making the open level design feel artificial AND pointless. For the same square footage with no items or enemies or NPCs or collectibles, I can scour every interesting surface in Zelda.
2) I prefer the level design in Zelda. Just the forest section had more interesting structures, placement of trees and rocks, verticality, etc to look around in. When you leave the chamber, you can immediately jump off an alcove into a lake, head toward some ruins or the Temple of Time, etc. And the sheer scale, mystery, and accessibility of it all makes it more inherently interesting for me to wander around than it does in most other games' empty level spaces.

I doubt I will mind the emptiness in BotW unless it gets too carried away. I still want NPCs and enemies and items along the way, which it seems it will provide.

A great example is Red Dead Redemption. That game made you want to take the scenic route.

How will BotW solve the edges of the map tho?

 

[Jarmel]

It's a wilderness. With fields and open spaces. I dunno, feels like people gotta get out more often when ideas of "barrenness" get thrown around lol.

Not that I don't understand the complaint, but sometimes the open world is, well, open. It's like the gaming equivalent of the That's The Joke.

Not that you can't dislike a lack of focus in an area, or even not like it as a direction for Zelda. There's an argument to be had there. I understand. But the bits of gameplay design I've seen so far makes me think they may be doing open world right. And if it's an open world, there just will be open space.

And that field is boring as hell. Games aren't real life.

 

[JaseMath]

Hopefully the challenge of the game is up there with forward thinking aesthetic. Enemies are never threatening in Zelda titles.

 

[stilgar]

I love ALL of this.

I can't believe how much of a Zelda fanboy I've become again. It's Wind Waker all over again.

 

[The Lamp]

How will BotW solve the edges of the map tho?

Clever natural barriers like a steep cliff that drops off into a vast ocean below or desert, stuff like that.

 

[phanphare]

Hopefully the challenge of the game is up there with forward thinking aesthetic. Enemies are never threatening in Zelda titles.

they've shown some pretty powerful enemies so far so I'm hopeful

I think one enemy did 6 and a half hearts of damage in one shot

 

[emb]

The quotes inspire confidence here.

Full emptiness isn't good, but neither is it good to have a sideshow every 2 steps. Gotta strike a balance.

 

[Jarmel]

That first quote in the OP definitely reminds me of MGSV and my problems with its overworld.

 

[Bots are better than you]

A great example is Red Dead Redemption. That game made you want to take the scenic route.

Only if there are no bears ... or mountain lions ...

 

[Cow Mengde]

Hopefully the challenge of the game is up there with forward thinking aesthetic. Enemies are never threatening in Zelda titles.

Play the first 2 Zeldas.

That brings up another point. When you find items, it's only useful if it serves a purpose. If you are rewarded with armor or whatever for exploring, make sure the enemies are tough, and finding that armor helps you out. That's why I love finding hearts in the first Zelda because the enemies do fight back and hit hard. Exploring and finding a heart feels very rewarding because it factors into the gameplay. Exploring for the sake of exploring is boring.

 

[tkscz]

That first quote in the OP definitely reminds me of MGSV and my problems with its overworld.

Like someone else said, MGSV also had a weird fast travel and didn't allow you to traverse Mountains as well.

 

[Sadist]

Yes, this sounds great.

Stil have to wait till next year

 

[Ansatz]

How will BotW solve the edges of the map tho?

What if the world is spherical like a planet so if you keep going in one direction you'll eventually end up in the same spot!

 

[The Lamp]

That first quote in the OP definitely reminds me of MGSV and my problems with its overworld.

But like was said, MGSV world would have been extremely frustrating if you couldn't warp into missions because the entire open world was a combat desert with unscaleable terrain. I can't even count the number of times I had to go all the way around a crazy mountain range to go where I wanted, doing nothing interesting along the way.

This game has you cutting trees, rolling boulders, observing wildlife (so did MGSV), there's lots of interaction in the exploration itself.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

That first quote in the OP definitely reminds me of MGSV and my problems with its overworld.

MGSV had pockets of density.

Emptiness in its world was the norm.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Hopefully the challenge of the game is up there with forward thinking aesthetic. Enemies are never threatening in Zelda titles.

I'm not worried about this.

A standard goblin has 13 HP, depending on your weapon you have to hit him several times, three of them and you already need a lot of damage.

Meanwhile, if your weapon isn't powerful it breaks to boot.

 

[Enduin]

That first quote in the OP definitely reminds me of MGSV and my problems with its overworld.

Ehh the problem with MGSV is that there are only two kinds of locations in the game, empty "pockets" or enemy locations. There's nothing to explore or find in that game, so there is no real reward for going over the next hill to see what you can find. Especially since there's only two locations that aren't that big with the amount of missions the game has. So halfway through the game you've seen most everything.

Given the apparent size of BotW and Zelda games in general I don't think there will be an issue of retreading old ground a ton nor the lack of interesting things to find and explore and rewards for doing so.

 

[ramparter]

How will BotW solve the edges of the map tho?

I think its a huge land surrounded by sea every were.

But they could also have some very high straight up hills that your stamina isnt enough to climb them all the way to the top.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

How will BotW solve the edges of the map tho?

Watch it be ominous fog that is really dance so you don't notice that you're walking into an invisible wall.

 

[PtM]

I wish the world map was all black when you first start the game and it gets opened up as you move across the map. you have no idea whats a head of you.

Oh yes, that is one tradition I value.

Play the first 2 Zeldas.

Really?

 

[Alienous]

That first quote in the OP definitely reminds me of MGSV and my problems with its overworld.

Well -

MGSV had very few means of traversal. The horse was a partner than needed to be picked, whereas in BotW it seems like a horse will be something permanent once you get to the point where you would need one. Plus you can climb, go skiing on your shield, glide, and perhaps more.

Plus MGSV's world didn't contain towns or really any locations of interest that weren't there to facilitate taking down enemies.

Also BotW's fast travel system seems less obtuse than the mail delivery system MGSV featured and never really explained.

 

[Worldshaker]

I haven't been this excited for a new Zelda in quite some time. I've always loved how open and free the original Zelda was.

This has now become my most anticipated game.

 

[Thud]

It was weird to see so much footage and not a single rupee.

In Twilight Princess you tripped on those things.

 

[khaaan]

It was weird to see so much footage and not a single rupee.

In Twilight Princess you tripped on those things.

I believe they've explained that.

Spoiler

You trade loot for rupees and then rupees for whatever

 

[yanipheonu]

And that field is boring as hell. Games aren't real life.

You're not doing it right?

 

[Enduin]

It was weird to see so much footage and not a single rupee.

In Twilight Princess you tripped on those things.

Just like hearts are gone so too are rupees it seems. They're still in the game but it looks like we only get them from trading the items we find and collect in the wild with NPC merchants.

 

[Jarmel]

But like was said, MGSV world would have been extremely frustrating if you couldn't warp into missions because the entire open world was a combat desert with unscaleable terrain. I can't even count the number of times I had to go all the way around a crazy mountain range to go where I wanted, doing nothing interesting along the way.

This game has you cutting trees, rolling boulders, observing wildlife (so did MGSV), there's lots of interaction in the exploration itself.

There's two separate issues there. The first is the map layout which in MGSV's case forced long travelling times. That's an problem of the overworld level design rather than something like enemy placement or density. However there's also an issue about how enemies and items/things are laid out. MGSV similar to BotW had pockets of enemies with enemies ocassionally patrolling the surrounding area. This leads to areas being flat and boring to play as there's not much going on at certain sections in-between.

 

[Ansatz]

Different times and different paradigms. It's true that traversal was fast, but our imaginations were exploring a huge world. So you know, this leads to different schools of thought when it comes to designing a world.

Exactly.

In GTA 1 your imagination tells you that each car has a driver inside, but the game doesn't explicitly show you

I would prefer an approach to adventure games that aims to give the sense of a vast sprawling world, without actually being vast: show, don't tell.

Nowadays developers spend their resources realizing aspects of a game that in the past were handled by our imaginations, instead of focusing on fun gameplay. So they come up with solutions like procedurally generated content and skinner box elements to keep players addicted even though they're repeating the same mundane task over and over.

 

[RK9039]

The map is meant to be huge, at least according to that other thread, so a bit of emptiness isn't all that bad. Can't really expect Witcher 3 levels of density.

And yeah MGSV was mainly an empty, lifeless world, we've already seen that Breath of the Wild isn't like TPP.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

There's nothing wrong with pockets of emptiness. The problem is when open world games only have pockets of content--like MGSV--where you spend a lot of time just traversing around a bland world with nothing to do.

If it's something like Witcher 3 where towns, forts etc. are plentiful and there are lots of smaller things all over the place that's fine. Then it's fun exploring and seeing what you find on the way to your next objective. It's not fun, IMO, when you're doing nothing but traversing with little to nothing to find until you get to your next objective.

We'll see where Zelda falls on that spectrum.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I believe they've explained that.

Spoiler

You trade loot for rupees and then rupees for whatever

Just like hearts are gone so too are rupees it seems. They're still in the game but it looks like we only get them from trading the items we find and collect in the wild with NPC merchants.

I really doubt that rupees are gone as a reward. I would think we can still find them in chests, they just left them out of the E3 demo since there's nothing to spend rupees on without the towns present.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and rupees and towns are in a weird spirit plane or in the past only, or something crazy like that...

 

[Firemind]

Watch it be ominous fog that is really dance so you don't notice that you're walking into an invisible wall.

I think it will be the old man telling you you can't go past there because it's too dangerous or something.

 

[OneUh8]

I am really appreciating the design decision and philosophies that have went into this game. Can't wait to experience it!

 

[SilverLunar]

I can't handle all of this, will there be pots to break?! 😢

 

[Ninjimbo]

Getting lost isn't fun. It's never been fun. It only seems fun in retrospect if you ever find your way out. But if you get lost and stay lost? Yeah, you won't be having fun.

 

[Enduin]

I really doubt that rupees are gone as a reward. I would think we can still find them in chests, they just left them out of the E3 demo since there's nothing to spend rupees on without the towns present.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and rupees and towns are in a weird spirit plane or in the past only, or something crazy like that...

Yeah I'm not sure. I was thinking that there has to be some Rupees as rewards in chests too but it would be weird for them to specifically remove them from chest in the E3 demo. It's not like they were hiding the fact that they exist, and they didn't deny the fact that towns and NPCs exist either just they didn't want to show it. So what would be the harm of having you find a Rupee or 5 in a chest? Seems like more trouble than necessary to exclude them.

Might be Rupees as rewards are limited to areas where it would make sense to find them there. An isolated and sacred plateau where people aren't supposed to go and there's only one old man and bunch of monsters isn't a place you'd find them. While more populated regions you might.

But then again with how coy they are with the towns and NPCs they may really limit your access to Rupees via trading only for some specific gameplay/story reason we aren't aware of.

 

[Vital Tundra]

Crazy that NINTENDO wants you to get lost.

 

[Coreda]

It's a wilderness. With fields and open spaces. I dunno, feels like people gotta get out more often when ideas of "barrenness" get thrown around lol.

Not that I don't understand the complaint, but sometimes the open world is, well, open. It's like the gaming equivalent of the That's The Joke.

Nothing wrong with a nice stroll It's Zelda though. The real life photo examples of fields/hills with 'barrenness' aren't really a great comparison to some of the posts about potential barrenness in this game with its highly stylized and simplified graphics.

We're obviously not getting the sensory richness that comes with a real life experience or even realistic, highly detailed terrain/grass, subtle weather changes and such so it has to make up for it in other ways by spacing its points of interest wisely and making the world shine with its own unique style. Done well it could be great and leave the rest to the imagination.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Getting lost isn't fun. It's never been fun. It only seems fun in retrospect if you ever find your way out. But if you get lost and stay lost? Yeah, you won't be having fun.

Getting lost is only not fun when it's preventing you from doing something (ie Where do I go/what do i do to figure out this puzzle).

When the player is in charge, they can figure out how long they want to be lost for. And that's what this game is all about: making everything that used to be considered "rules" optional and making it truly about moment to moment decision making.

 

[Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule]

Something I haven't seen mentioned much is that on the game map we've seen, every "area" even inside the plateau region has a unique name, like Hopper Pond, Mount Hylia, The Forest of Spirits...

This shows me two things:

1. They are trying very hard to create actual memorable areas similar to OoT, where we (I anyway) can remember specifically the exact layout of Zora's river for example.

2. They are filling every area in the game with a specific purpose. Some of those areas may be pockets of emptiness, sure, but they will likely have names that tie into the story or lore, or otherwise give you some hint of what that area represents.

This is unlike something like Skyrim, where you have the names of towns/dungeons/caves and a few names detailing the larger regions in this game, but you don't have every specific area, pond, forest, mountain show a specific name.

It really helps make the world feel real and handcrafted, rather than made with a landscape generator.

-''Where can i found Steppe Talus?''
-''Look around of the Hopper Pond in the Great Plateau''

 

[DrArchon]

This is going to be so good. I love wandering around aimlessly in big open world games and just taking the scenery in and finding random crap to do. If every other area is as beautiful as the one the showed off in the demo and there' enough "toys in the sandbox" as it were then this could be my favorite Zelda game of all time.

 

[Mokujin]

I'm fine with it, I dont need every inch of the map filled with relevant things, would be nice to have subtle side-quests that take you to otherwise "empty" areas but not explicitly.

 

[LiK]

So are open world haters gonna finally embrace this open world game?

 

[Chezzymann]

To me, like another poster said, it depends on if there's pockets of emptiness or pockets of interesting stuff. If there's pockets of interesting stuff then the emptiness just serves as a barrier to gettimg towards it. Even if it is just pockets of emptiness, it also depends on how repetitive the interesting stuff is outside of shrines. Once you start seeing everything over and over again (like the same enemy hut or same guardian) it starts to become boring. It looked like there was a lot to do on the stream and lots of chests to find so I'm optimistic but I think it depends on how much they stretch that concept for other areas

 

[Menitta]

While I agree, I get the feeling a lot of people won't find emptiness fun.

 

[Matbtz]

I can't handle all of this, will there be pots to break?! 😢

YES ! I saw Link carry a pot and throw it away, don't worry some things are still the same

 

[Skittzo0413]

Yeah I'm not sure. I was thinking that there has to be some Rupees as rewards in chests too but it would be weird for them to specifically remove them from chest in the E3 demo. It's not like they were hiding the fact that they exist, and they didn't deny the fact that towns and NPCs exist either just they didn't want to show it. So what would be the harm of having you find a Rupee or 5 in a chest? Seems like more trouble than necessary to exclude them.

Might be Rupees as rewards are limited to areas where it would make sense to find them there. An isolated and sacred plateau where people aren't supposed to go and there's only one old man and bunch of monsters isn't a place you'd find them. While more populated regions you might.

But then again with how coy they are with the towns and NPCs they may really limit your access to Rupees via trading only for some specific gameplay/story reason we aren't aware of.

Well with most games that have chests with semi-randomized loot, you can simply take rupees off of the loot table to make sure they don't appear, and that's a very very easy change to make for the E3 demo. As to why they'd bother, if there is no purpose for rupees then it would be a waste of the journalist's time if they went through the trouble of getting to a chest to just find 100 rupees. I suppose you could say the same about the gemstones, but at least those are different looking and sorta show off a new aspect of this Zelda game.

-''Where can i found Steppe Talus?''
-''Look around of the Hopper Pond in the Great Plateau''

Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. I don't know if many open world games really do that- I think Dragon's Dogma does it to an extent, but it's just such a nice touch that makes the world feel more like an actual world with character and less like a procedurally generated landscape.

And this ties into the empty pockets in the world- you wouldn't expect the "Desert of Dreams" or the "Bay of Decay" to be completely packed with content.

 

[phanphare]

So are open world haters gonna finally embrace this open world game?

as an open world hater, yes I am

this game seems to solve all the issues I have with most popular open world games