Aaronrules380
Member
Open world is a pretty meaningless, overused buzz word anyways.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Aonuma in EDGE: Zelda Wii U won't be open world the same way other games are.
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
This. And if that turns out to be the case, some vocal part of the fanbase will inevitably complain about it but thankfully I can't be bothered to give a fuck.
I think the idea is it won't just drop you into this world like GTA and leave you to your own devices but will be vast in size but still very much narrative focused. You'll be able to tackle each dungeon in any order with no single path. So although the game will be large and full of sandbox game elements it'll still keep you doing things in terms of story. So basically like Zelda now but larger, less linear and filled with a more interesting world.
It'll probably be like Wind Waker except you're on land most of the time and have more things in between travel.
I mean, if you watch what he said at E3, he said something about not being able to create a "connected world" on older hardware, using Wind Waker as an example where every island had a defined boundary where you entered (if you notice, as you approach or move away from an island, it's like it suddenly "deactivates").
Also, he mentioned being able to "approach from all angles" as soon as "those boundaries are removed", probably meaning you have to have a certain item, or a certain part of the story has to play out.
But yeah, it'll probably be very much Zelda, just bigger and better.
I mean, if you watch what he said at E3, he said something about not being able to create a "connected world" on older hardware, using Wind Waker as an example where every island had a defined boundary where you entered (if you notice, as you approach or move away from an island, it's like it suddenly "deactivates").
Also, he mentioned being able to "approach from all angles" as soon as "those boundaries are removed", probably meaning you have to have a certain item, or a certain part of the story has to play out.
But yeah, it'll probably be very much Zelda, just bigger and better.
Mango The Magician
Banned
You know with these quotes in mind, I'm curious how the forest areas shown in the reveal will work. I mean I doubt that they'll model every single tree, so will it just be a loading screen followed by a linear forest area or what?
Probably seems like a dumb question, but I haven't played a lot of modern open world games.
mentallyinept
Banned
Yeah, I agree with this.
Thankfully, what we have seen of Zelda U so far seems to indicate such freedom:
- We have Link being presented as a seasoned warrior, armed to the teeth with a sword, shield, bow, multiple types of arrows, field pack, rain cloak, etc.
- Link is highly mobile, having Epona (or whatever they will call his horse) from the outset. He and Epona share a close bond, to the point were she actually assists in combat situations.
- All major destinations are already visible, one only needs to look around.
This indicates to me that Link is ready to go, and only has his mission and destination to worry about.
megatronium
Member
This is what it means IMO.
What he said was that each island had a defined entrance and exit, and that he strives to eliminate that for Zelda U (meaning that you can approach locations from literally any direction, unlike in WW where only specific "sides" of the islands and platforms are actually accessible). He also used Wind Waker for comparative purposes too, not just for contrast.
Also, I think it's safe to say that it will be absolutely nothing like Dark Souls, which had a very defined corridor-like structure in many areas.
Neff
Member
It'll be Dragon's Dogma open world at most, not Bethesda or GTA open world.
Honestly, it didn't mean anything when he was hinting at it being 'open world' when the game was unveiled, and neither does saying it won't be.
All it needs is a nice balance of exploration, interaction and non-linearity with a lenient but forceful guiding designer's hand. It's a tricky balance to pull off, and only a few of the Zeldas have achieved it, none of them 3D.
I think this one has the best chance yet though, based on that amazing overworld screen alone.
Honestly, it didn't mean anything when he was hinting at it being 'open world' when the game was unveiled, and neither does saying it won't be.
All it needs is a nice balance of exploration, interaction and non-linearity with a lenient but forceful guiding designer's hand. It's a tricky balance to pull off, and only a few of the Zeldas have achieved it, none of them 3D.
I think this one has the best chance yet though, based on that amazing overworld screen alone.
MisterGrey3000
Member
Pretty much.
No worries though, I'm sure we'll probably learn about something new and substantial sometime next year.
Hopefully sooner than later.
Father_Brain
Banned
So it's literally set in an open world, but won't be a sandbox game. Did anyone expect a Zelda sandbox?
Aonuma could possibly be talking about how this game won't be as much of a "sandbox" as other open world titles. While some Zelda mechanics encourage that sort of chaos (breaking pots in others' homes) I don't really see Link stealing a horse, killing 40 NPC's, and then dying at the hands of the guards and respawning.
The real issue with the overworld design is striking the right balance between having both the sweeping fields (Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess) and the dense puzzle-y layouts (Link's Awakening, Skyward Sword) all the while allowing the player to have many possible directions to progress in (The Legend of Zelda). A hard task, but if they could pull it off correctly enough it would be awesome.
The real issue with the overworld design is striking the right balance between having both the sweeping fields (Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess) and the dense puzzle-y layouts (Link's Awakening, Skyward Sword) all the while allowing the player to have many possible directions to progress in (The Legend of Zelda). A hard task, but if they could pull it off correctly enough it would be awesome.
Here's what I don't want:
The "Open worldmap, mark next destination, travel, solve mission, repeat"-structure that we've been fed for the past few years when it comes to many open world games. Sidequests that are there for the sole purpose to give you XP to upgrade your abilities somewhere inside a submenu maze which can be ignored altogether as well. I don't want the mainquest to feel separated from the rest of the world, I want some actual immersion.
Also, I think a good open-world game hides its structure as good as possible. GTAV did a great job in making you believe you are a part of a big city that can exist without your actions, and surprise you with new elements all the time. I feel Los Santos is still the best realized open-world because of this.
Just don't make me see through your game after 15 minutes like Watch_Dogs, Nintendo.
The "Open worldmap, mark next destination, travel, solve mission, repeat"-structure that we've been fed for the past few years when it comes to many open world games. Sidequests that are there for the sole purpose to give you XP to upgrade your abilities somewhere inside a submenu maze which can be ignored altogether as well. I don't want the mainquest to feel separated from the rest of the world, I want some actual immersion.
Also, I think a good open-world game hides its structure as good as possible. GTAV did a great job in making you believe you are a part of a big city that can exist without your actions, and surprise you with new elements all the time. I feel Los Santos is still the best realized open-world because of this.
Just don't make me see through your game after 15 minutes like Watch_Dogs, Nintendo.
Aonuma has repeatedly shown his incompetence in creating interesting, vibrant worlds. I wouldn't get my hopes up.
I'd like it to be a bit like Fable 2 in as much as each destination is easily findable and usually has a road leading to it but if you venture off the road there's a lot of exploring to do while always being vaguely aware of where the 'main road' is so you never feel entirely lost. The exploring in Fable 2 is also well designed with 'off road' areas having visible points of interest and with the land laying in a way that felt natural but lead you in the direction of goodies.
It felt open but was still very structured with each 'off road' part being self contained. I was really impressed with what they did in Fable 2 in this respect and think it would work well in Zelda. A large, but not overwhelming or confusing, well designed and well structured open world with defined direct routes to the main towns/dungeons and a lot of extra exploring for those that want it.
It felt open but was still very structured with each 'off road' part being self contained. I was really impressed with what they did in Fable 2 in this respect and think it would work well in Zelda. A large, but not overwhelming or confusing, well designed and well structured open world with defined direct routes to the main towns/dungeons and a lot of extra exploring for those that want it.
TwilightPrincess
Member
Although Aonuma has even less influence on this (and SS since he was only producer). Yes, he still has some overall guidance on the project, but I wouldn't put the blame on him now.
I feel like this new style and detail really could be a change for the better in that respect. I know there's more to it. I'm just hopeful that there's more of a reason to want to hang around in this one than dungeons and plot points.
Scooter155
Member
No offense intended here, but I'm always confused by people who want Zelda to be more like other games. Whether it's Dark Souls, Skyrim, Darksiders, whatever.
Zelda's always been its own thing and (almost) always forged new ground, introducing mechanics, concepts, heck, entire genres! The day they start imitating other games is the day I lose faith.
I don't see why anyone would complain. That's all other open world games are, except for a generic random enemy encounter here and there, which i'm sure Zelda U would have as well.
Open world is the most meaningless word in game parlance. I have no idea what it means anymore.
Take Skyrim. Is that open world? Most would call it an open world game. The reason being is that it has a large map and you have hundreds of quests that can take you to every part of the world. In essence, you can travel anywhere at mostly any time. But still, there are places that are off limits until certain points in the main story or until you "unlock" then by a sidequest telling you to go there.
Now let's take GTA. Is that open world? Well, seeing as in most games entire portions of the city is locked out to you until certain missions are completed, you can't claim that you can go anywhere at any time. But you can go anywhere the game allows you to go at any time, which is true for Skyrim. It's also a sandbox: you can do anything the game allows you to do at mostly any time.
So is that the definition of open world: you can go anywhere the game allows you to go at any time you want? No, because that's every video game ever.
I trust Aonuma. I love LoZ. I am glad they are choosing to do a more "open" style of gameplay structure, but I don't like their choice of words. Open world means so many different things to so many different people, that it's impossible to temper expectations of what that should or should not entail. To some, it means literally a thousand quests. To others, it means a impossibly large world to explore. Then, to even more, it means an open sandbox where you can do whatever you want.
I don't Zelda U will include any of the things I just mentioned, but why should it? It's not a game about infinite sidequests or giant world maps or allowing the player to do anything they want, it's a game about going on an adventure. If Aonuma wants to make that adventure more open-ended, that's A-OK with me and I look forward to seeing how it comes together. But to call it open world seems like it's causing some massive blowback because it's a marketing invented buzzword with no real meaning.
What I want Zelda U to be, and what I understand Aonuma to be creating, is a large world that is more open to exploration than past Zeldas in that your progression isn't as much of a linear journey as it was in the past few games. Does that mean it will be an impossibly large world? No, and I don't want it to be.
Take Skyrim. Is that open world? Most would call it an open world game. The reason being is that it has a large map and you have hundreds of quests that can take you to every part of the world. In essence, you can travel anywhere at mostly any time. But still, there are places that are off limits until certain points in the main story or until you "unlock" then by a sidequest telling you to go there.
Now let's take GTA. Is that open world? Well, seeing as in most games entire portions of the city is locked out to you until certain missions are completed, you can't claim that you can go anywhere at any time. But you can go anywhere the game allows you to go at any time, which is true for Skyrim. It's also a sandbox: you can do anything the game allows you to do at mostly any time.
So is that the definition of open world: you can go anywhere the game allows you to go at any time you want? No, because that's every video game ever.
I trust Aonuma. I love LoZ. I am glad they are choosing to do a more "open" style of gameplay structure, but I don't like their choice of words. Open world means so many different things to so many different people, that it's impossible to temper expectations of what that should or should not entail. To some, it means literally a thousand quests. To others, it means a impossibly large world to explore. Then, to even more, it means an open sandbox where you can do whatever you want.
I don't Zelda U will include any of the things I just mentioned, but why should it? It's not a game about infinite sidequests or giant world maps or allowing the player to do anything they want, it's a game about going on an adventure. If Aonuma wants to make that adventure more open-ended, that's A-OK with me and I look forward to seeing how it comes together. But to call it open world seems like it's causing some massive blowback because it's a marketing invented buzzword with no real meaning.
What I want Zelda U to be, and what I understand Aonuma to be creating, is a large world that is more open to exploration than past Zeldas in that your progression isn't as much of a linear journey as it was in the past few games. Does that mean it will be an impossibly large world? No, and I don't want it to be.
Neff
Member
I'm no fan of Majora's Mask particularly, but that game's world is frequently pointed to among the fanbase as having one of the most lively, dense, intricate worlds in the series, which Aonuma of course co-directed.
Yeah, he's a convenient boogeyman for the series' failings according to harsher fan criticism, and while he does get final approval on everything, one man can only have so much influence in a game created by a hundred people or more.
I think he's a talented guy, and that he has a very good understanding of what makes Zelda uniquely Zelda. But ever since Ocarina I've felt that the series has failed to come up with an overworld as compelling and relevant as LttP's or LA's, Minish Cap's amazing overworld being an outsourced anomaly. For the first time in a long time, it sounds like they're pouring a lot of effort into the design, traversal and progression of the overworld. That excites me.
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
Though I don't really expect much exciting from an Aonuma game I was hoping he would be able to learn some new tricks. Hype dying for now.
MM fans think that. Others think that's when the first cracks in the series started to form.
MM fans think that. Others think that's when the first cracks in the series started to form.
Not sure how that's possible. Majora's Mask's overworld is far superior to OOT's. Far more dense, more side quests, varied locations, more stuff to discover, more interesting NPCs... just a fantastic overworld.
Wind Waker is where downfall began.
MisterGrey3000
Member
Aonuma's quote about not noticing/not caring about how brainless ALBW's dungeon design (The item usage, puzzles, and non-puzzle obstacles) is still has me worried about how interesting, unique, and complex LoZ:U's various levels will be from both a thematic and gameplay perspective.
I'm not in the mood for MM/WW/ALBW/"Zelda dungeons for dummies"-caliber design...especially not on the WiiU.
Barry Burton
Member
Great post. 100% agree.
It's a matter of preference. I personally enjoyed WW's overworld much more than MM's, which generally felt too crammed for my liking with a lot of smaller, less complex grottos compared to those found out on the Great Sea.
Neff
Member
Pancakes R Us
Member
Of course not. Nintendo just has to do things different than everyone else just for the sake of it, even when whatever it is is well established.
Yeah, I get the feeling this has more to do with the mission structure than anything, something they already toyed with/did in Link Between Worlds. Skyrim/GTA/clones have big open places to play, but the stories/missions are fairly on rails. At this point I'm just expecting this to be Zelda 1 in 3D.
The Lamonster
Member
Seems like Nintendo is trying to exaggerate the ways this Zelda will be different from previous entries. Just make it less tedious than Skyward Sword and I'll be happy. No need to embellish these small differences and then backpedal when journos get the wrong idea about your game.
And thank goodness for that!
Labrynian Rebel
Member
Good, that means we're getting a large inter-connected mostly non-linear Zelda game, not a randomly generated Zeldyrim.
Emphasis on co-directed. Aonuma's strengths do not lie in world design and lore. Game design perhaps. I've always been an advocate of Koizumi taking over Zelda. Seems like I have to wait a bit longer.
Here is what i want and hope, how Zelda U's open world works:
Your send of a secret quest from your village elder Impa to find nine magic artifact, which can help saving the world. But no one know where they are! So you have to travel around the world to find clues. From an old man in a nearby city you hear a story about an ancient temple at the side of an mountain, which contains unbelievable treasures! But of course it is only a LEGEND. Can this be a place of one of the magic artifacts?
So you look around the highest tower of the city and expecting some mountains in the distance. But you don't know, which of those mountains is the right one, if the story is true at all. There all different ins some kind, but also very similar. Not sure what to do next, you overhear some other people talking over resent attacks of monsters near a mine. At least some excuse to check on one of the mountains.
At the mine you defend some Gorons and they thank you with some rubies. But still no clue of an ancient temple. So you try to check the other side of the mountain just to be sure, but it is actual a difficult climb. You chose one of many routes and tackle the mountain with your grappling hook.
After a long climb you notice monster crawling at other side of the mountain. Is this the right track? You fight your way through them, have to navigate through some hard terrain and finally find an old fortress. On the way to the front gate Goblin charges at you from the inside. The fight is long and ends with a victories battle against there fearsome leader But there is no sign of ancient temple here!? But inside his treasure room you find another grappling hook! It makes the way back to the mine easier and will certainly help climbing the next mountain on your list.
Your send of a secret quest from your village elder Impa to find nine magic artifact, which can help saving the world. But no one know where they are! So you have to travel around the world to find clues. From an old man in a nearby city you hear a story about an ancient temple at the side of an mountain, which contains unbelievable treasures! But of course it is only a LEGEND. Can this be a place of one of the magic artifacts?
So you look around the highest tower of the city and expecting some mountains in the distance. But you don't know, which of those mountains is the right one, if the story is true at all. There all different ins some kind, but also very similar. Not sure what to do next, you overhear some other people talking over resent attacks of monsters near a mine. At least some excuse to check on one of the mountains.
At the mine you defend some Gorons and they thank you with some rubies. But still no clue of an ancient temple. So you try to check the other side of the mountain just to be sure, but it is actual a difficult climb. You chose one of many routes and tackle the mountain with your grappling hook.
After a long climb you notice monster crawling at other side of the mountain. Is this the right track? You fight your way through them, have to navigate through some hard terrain and finally find an old fortress. On the way to the front gate Goblin charges at you from the inside. The fight is long and ends with a victories battle against there fearsome leader But there is no sign of ancient temple here!? But inside his treasure room you find another grappling hook! It makes the way back to the mine easier and will certainly help climbing the next mountain on your list.
Yes Nintendo has to go back to secrets being hinted by NPCs. No detailed map (A map you have to draw yourself like in Phantom Hourglass would be neat) , no X on the map (or at least optional).
You guys take these snip comments to heart too much. I mean I like hearing about the game, but all these comments by Aonuma end up either confusing me more or taking back something he said, which also confuses.
I honestly never thought that we'd get a skyrim like Zelda game, and thank god for that. I'm not so sure where they are taking this game, especially from these comments, but I don't expect them to reinvent open-world games, but nor do I expect them to just make Zelda like other open world games, if that makes sense. I have hope for them, not too little not too much.
I honestly never thought that we'd get a skyrim like Zelda game, and thank god for that. I'm not so sure where they are taking this game, especially from these comments, but I don't expect them to reinvent open-world games, but nor do I expect them to just make Zelda like other open world games, if that makes sense. I have hope for them, not too little not too much.
Buddha Beam
Banned
Personally, I've always expected it to mean that you're allowed to go anywhere that they've made accessible. The difference being that they aren't going to make you do dungeons in a certain order. You'll play through, say, the first 3 dungeons in whatever order you want and then gain the ability to access a new area. The whole world map will probably be mostly open to exploration from the get-go, but there will be specific, crucial places you can't get to without doing certain things first.
So more or less like A Link Between Worlds.
So more or less like A Link Between Worlds.