Support NeoGAF

[AdventureRacing]

The same non-content activity cramming can be seen in World of Warcraft as well, back in the day you could wander through the Barrens with nothing happening for one hour because there were no fast traveling options and the quest goal would be on the other end of the map. But you would enjoy it anyway due to the atmosphere and serenity of the area, probably in the same way as in Shadow of the Colossus I'd imagine.

Nowadays the expansions feel very systematically manufactured, it seems that they have a formula or an algorhitm for placing different types of activities or elements to correct places with exact distances from each other. I really dislike that feeling. The world is too perfect, it's like a controlled simulation environment like Westworld, designed just for me. The world stops being immersive anymore, it's like uncanny valley of adventure or exploration. Seems that the new Zelda is having symptoms of that problem to a degree as well.

The WoW comparison rings true to me. On top of what you said though, the time spent traversing large areas of land would encourage me to do other things. Looking over my talents, equipment, skills etc. I would also communicate with my guild or the area I was in. Plus I would find myself getting curious and searching all the areas I wouldn't normally go.

 

[phanphare]

Okay, so here's an example:

https://youtu.be/QyMsF31NdNc?list=WL&t=2147

Here they're talking about cutting down a tree, so that the log drops into the water with the player then jumping on it. That's cool!

BUT: In a traditionally designed game, as a designer, you'd now go ahead and make that log-ride insanely exciting, you'd put little openings into the path where you have to shoot enemies with arrows or activate some mechanism that then opens a dam in the distance and dropping the log in there is the only way to do that - It'd lead to something exciting, cool and it'd make you feel like a rockstar for pulling it off.

Now, with an open world game and the player being able to do that absolutely everywhere, you just cannot design that way. You drop the log into the water and just swim down the hill and all you see is more of the world and at some point you just jump off to get back to what you were doing before.

And yes, sometimes you can come up with funny little things to do, like shooting an explosive barrel in an enemy camp in order to defeat the enemies, but obviously you're not gonna get the same excitement out of some random event that might open up for you than if a designer would actually spend a month of his time to just make sure that this particular section is gaming bliss and oozes fun.

There is a big difference between going to an amusement park where designers have actually designed every inch for you to enjoy your experience and just taking a walk through a park - While the latter can obviously also be nice, if that's all you do all day, it gets boring quick, compared to you going to a theme park where somebody tried to design the place for you to just enjoy the hell out of it with varied experiences and the likes.

All I'm saying is that open world games are usually the latter - Because designing a space that large to actually all work together and that space oozing fun is an impossibility. Trust me, it's already really difficult to make spaces fun if you're making a smaller Metroidvania, but once you're presented with making an open world game that's as large as BotWs, you are absolutely making the decision to give up on careful, handcrafted design.

I think your grievances just boil down to you don't personally enjoy some aspects of what the game is going for. which is fine of course but you're trying to go further and bring up some kind of inherent misstep that doesn't actually exist. you're hearing a folk ballad and bringing up why blues is better and citing differences between the genres not realizing that those differences aren't inherently better or worse they just are and people will have a preference one way or the other.

 

[En-ou]

Okay, so here's an example:

https://youtu.be/QyMsF31NdNc?list=WL&t=2147

Here they're talking about cutting down a tree, so that the log drops into the water with the player then jumping on it. That's cool!

BUT: In a traditionally designed game, as a designer, you'd now go ahead and make that log-ride insanely exciting, you'd put little openings into the path where you have to shoot enemies with arrows or activate some mechanism that then opens a dam in the distance and dropping the log in there is the only way to do that - It'd lead to something exciting, cool and it'd make you feel like a rockstar for pulling it off.

Now, with an open world game and the player being able to do that absolutely everywhere, you just cannot design that way. You drop the log into the water and just swim down the lake and all you see is more of the world and at some point you just jump off to get back to what you were doing before.

And yes, sometimes you can come up with funny little things to do, like shooting an explosive barrel in an enemy camp in order to defeat the enemies, but obviously you're not gonna get the same excitement out of some random event that might open up for you than if a designer would actually spend a month of his time to just make sure that this particular section is gaming bliss and oozes fun.

There is a big difference between going to an amusement park where designers have actually designed every inch for you to enjoy your experience and just taking a walk through a park - While the latter can obviously also be nice, if that's all you do all day, it gets boring quick, compared to you going to a theme park where somebody tried to design the place for you to just enjoy the hell out of it with varied experiences and the likes.

All I'm saying is that open world games are usually the latter - Because designing a space that large to actually all work together and that space oozing fun is an impossibility. Trust me, it's already really difficult to make spaces fun if you're making a smaller Metroidvania, but once you're presented with making an open world game that's as large as BotWs, you are absolutely making the decision to give up on careful, handcrafted design.

Well I can tell you that the random shit I've done in this game has given me some of the best experiences in gaming.

What they're going for mostly is emergent gameplay and less scripted events - not rolling down a river on a log while sniping enemies. That is more for Tomb Raider or Uncharted.

They're created the world and the rules and it's up to you to make your adventure not have the designer create an on rails experience for you.

 

[Nickle]

OP, I also disagree with your fun per inch philosophy. However, I do think that BotW is far too big, and it's because the reward for spending 4 minutes climbing a rock is usually something that you've already seen before. A snowy mountain range is going to have the same shrines, Korok seeds, enemy camps, Hinox's, Stone Talus's, stables, and music themes as a river basin.

 

[commish]

Your critique is nice and I can agree with many of your points but...what?

I'm guessing the thought is, if you have to introduce the concept of "fast travel", then you're really recognizing the fact that players probably don't want to spend their time traversing across the map back and forth. And if that's the case, then perhaps you should design your game where that isn't necessary.

OP, I glanced your post to see if it's worth reading and this part convinced me not to.

You clearly don't get that the concept of the Korok puzzles are about exploration and observation and NOT the simple puzzle itself. There's a reason why I have my 5 yr old complete the puzzles when I find them.

Seriously. Developer? Maybe. A good one? Hell, naw.

So now it's "insult my favorite game, I insult you personally." It's so sad how personal some people take other people's opinions. "I think this thing, in a game I called one of the best ever, could be a bit better." "Well, you suck as a human being and your mom does too."

Anyway, great post, OP. I agree with a lot of what you say, but also as you say, we are criticizing one of the best Nintendo games ever. I think having an open world game that is empty is one of the biggest problems with open world games. MGS5, which I enjoyed, had this problem in spades. Zelda isn't as bad but i would like to see more going on and more variety in those things. Still, can't wait for hard mode.

 

[phanphare]

Well I can tell you that the random shit I've done in this game has given me some of the best experiences in gaming.

What they're going for mostly is emergent gameplay and less scripted events - not rolling down a river on a log while sniping enemies. That is more for Tomb Raider or Uncharted.

They're created the world and the rules and it's up to you to make your adventure not have the designer create an on rails experience for you.

exactly, if they were to script some tree riding thing for every time you decide to walk on a tree in a river the game would be worse off. they create the rules and you have to abide by and manipulate those rules to work towards a desired outcome. maybe something like that could work as a contained mini game. either way that some scripted event doesn't happen when you chop down a tree in a river doesn't counter the claim that the world is purposeful and meticulously designed.

 

[lt519]

There is a big difference between going to an amusement park where designers have actually designed every inch for you to enjoy your experience and just taking a walk through a park - While the latter can obviously also be nice, if that's all you do all day, it gets boring quick, compared to you going to a theme park where somebody tried to design the place for you to just enjoy the hell out of it with varied experiences and the likes.

I get the point you want to pack as much fun in as you can. But be careful assuming that is what everyone sees as fun. For some people taking a walk through their local park is more fun then an amusement park. Why do you think walking simulators are so popular? Farming games? Truck simulators? I personally don't want to be assaulted with things to do at every turn and I think that is at the crux of the debate. The puzzle of terrain traversal itself is fun for a lot of players, why make them fight off enemies at the same time?

 

[LotusHD]

I'm guessing the thought is, if you have to introduce the concept of "fast travel", then you're really recognizing the fact that players probably don't want to spend their time traversing across the map back and forth. And if that's the case, then perhaps you should design your game where that isn't necessary.

I mean, you can't just not introduce it. Even a game like Gravity Rush 2 where the traversal is as good as it gets still has it as an option. I feel that the ideal solution is to make the game make you want to rely on it as little as possible. But even then, sometimes you just want to quickly get to another place, regardless of whether or not the world is too big. You can make the open world as compact as you want, and I'd still wonder why "fast travel" isn't implemented.

Well I can tell you that the random shit I've done in this game has given me some of the best experiences in gaming.

What they're going for mostly is emergent gameplay and less scripted events - not rolling down a river on a log while sniping enemies. That is more for Tomb Raider or Uncharted.

They're created the world and the rules and it's up to you to make your adventure not have the designer create an on rails experience for you.

Yea, one of the coolest things about the game is how we're all having these different experiences.

 

[thomasmahler]

I think your grievances just boil down to you don't personally enjoy some aspects of what the game is going for. which is fine of course but you're trying to go further and bring up some kind of inherent misstep that doesn't actually exist. you're hearing a folk ballad and bringing up why blues is better and citing differences between the genres not realizing that those differences aren't inherently better or worse they just are and people will have a preference one way or the other.

I saw that criticism before and I don't think it's apt at all.

One thing we did with Ori for example was to look at and dissect the level designs of older Castlevania titles and it was quite interesting to see how many flat levels games like Symphony of the Night actually had. Obviously they then filled up the flat levels with interesting enemies in order for you to not just press the DPAD into one direction, but we knew that the game would be better if we'd improve the movement mechanics beyond what's been done in the past and have the player constantly engage with the world, whether it'd be through jumping, climbing, bashing, solving puzzles, etc. etc., so that it wouldn't just be about one thing that's constantly being repeated.

If Konami would not have added these enemies and you'd have to go through many of these flat levels where your brain isn't engaged at all since all you're doing is moving forward, then there'd still be some people out there defending those designs as 'But it felt atmospheric' -> Even if there's literally no design work done there. This isn't at all about 'but some people have this or that preference', it's about good level design vs. bad level design.

Again, we can discuss the 'but white spaces are important' topic, which I agree with, but you need to find a good balance there and while playing Breath of the Wild, there absolutely were quite a LOT of places I had to pass where I literally did nothing other than running, climbing, running, climbing... without much variance in-between those actions and without the environment being particularly interesting.

Now, again, Breath of the Wilds open world IS absolutely a hundred times better than many of the other open world games out there, but it still suffers from those exact same issues of vast emptiness that all other open world games suffer from and I honestly cannot understand how anyone could play through the game without noticing these as issues.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

I'm guessing the thought is, if you have to introduce the concept of "fast travel", then you're really recognizing the fact that players probably don't want to spend their time traversing across the map back and forth. And if that's the case, then perhaps you should design your game where that isn't necessary.



So now it's "insult my favorite game, I insult you personally." It's so sad how personal some people take other people's opinions. "I think this thing, in a game I called one of the best ever, could be a bit better." "Well, you suck as a human being and your mom does too."

Anyway, great post, OP. I agree with a lot of what you say, but also as you say, we are criticizing one of the best Nintendo games ever. I think having an open world game that is empty is one of the biggest problems with open world games. MGS5, which I enjoyed, had this problem in spades. Zelda isn't as bad but i would like to see more going on and more variety in those things. Still, can't wait for hard mode.

Fast travel isn't a crutch for having boring content or a lack of content. It's to prevent the player from having to go back through areas they've already completed if they do not wish to. Fast travel is an option presented to the player, that you can decide to use or not to use, it is not forced upon you. BotW has fast travel for player convenience, not because getting from point a to point b is boring. You have to make the journey the first time to even get the ability to faSt travel in the first place.

 

[Chaos17]

Well I can tell you that the random shit I've done in this game has given me some of the best experiences in gaming.

What they're going for mostly is emergent gameplay and less scripted events - not rolling down a river on a log while sniping enemies. That is more for Tomb Raider or Uncharted.

They're created the world and the rules and it's up to you to make your adventure not have the designer create an on rails experience for you.

This and I think the OP avoided like a plague the OT where a lot of people are telling their own stories.
I think he should start there to gather information as a game dev for "science" and not just telling his own point of view as a gamer.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Yeah, as far as the log ride analogy goes, the entire point of BotW is that you can cut the tree down and sail down the river freely rather than being guided through a scripted corridor sequence.

A tightly controlled amusement park ride is not the only way to have fun or feel rewarded. In fact it has problems of its own - the feeling that the player has no real input and is just jumping through hoops. The player may not end up feeling like a badass while waiting for the scripted enemies to pop-up and shoot them on cue - it may just be boring for some people.

This is actually a problem I see in the design of a lot of games. They rely on scripted, mechanical sequences designed to appear elaborate and dramatic but don't really have very interesting player interaction. Tomb Raider 2013 and Uncharted have been brought up, and here's a further observation: In Tomb Raider, I found the best parts were the open sections in which the player was free to move around stealthily and hunt or stalk adversaries. The "exciting" scripted cinematic sequences are - in most cases - the worst parts of the modern Tomb Raiders and feel like they're there because the designers felt obligated by convention.

And Uncharted is interesting too, because Naughty Dog seems consciously aware of the limitations of such game design; Uncharted 4 put a lot of work into making encounters more dynamic and even scripted vehicle sections are much more interactive with more possible outcomes based on player decision making.

 

[Basileus777]

I never felt like the world was too large, the way the game rewards past exploration with new fast travel locations makes everything actually feel pretty close and gives the appearance of dense content (albeit most of it very samey). It sounds more like your decision to ignore fast travel is clashing with the game's design more than the world itself needed to be smaller. You are ignoring game systems and then complaining about the very issue that they exist to address.

 

[thomasmahler]

Fast travel isn't a crutch for having boring content or a lack of content. It's to prevent the player from having to go back through areas they've already completed if they do not wish to. Fast travel is an option presented to the player, that you can decide to use or not to use, it is not forced upon you. BotW has fast travel for player convenience, not because getting from point a to point b is boring. You have to make the journey the first time to even get the ability to faSt travel in the first place.

Which is why BotW is doing this better than most other games, but if we look at games like Skyrim, this doesn't hold true anymore. You get out of the tutorial dungeon and now you can either run around in a mostly empty world or you can immediately fast travel to one of the towns or another place that seems interesting to you. You can do that right from the get-go and I'd assume that MOST people run around the world for 15-20 minutes until they get bored and then start fast-traveling to one of the markers on the map, cause there's probably something more interesting going on in the town (and there usually is, case the open worlds in Bethesda games aren't really a stroke of design genius, to put it mildly...).

 

[Weltall Zero]

It's sad that bigger = better for so many.

So utterly, utterly tragic indeed.

Actually I think that image sums up the whole thread. I expected more from an Ori dev than "BotW is wrong because I dislike open world games". There are zero arguments in the whole thread that amount to anything more than personal taste.

 

[commish]

I mean, you can't just not introduce it. Even a game like Gravity Rush 2 where the traversal is as good as it gets still has it as an option. I feel that the ideal solution is to make the game make you want to rely on it as little as possible. But even then, sometimes you just want to quickly get to another place, regardless of whether or not the world is too big. You can make the open world as compact as you want, and I'd still wonder why "fast travel" isn't implemented.

Fast travel isn't a crutch for having boring content or a lack of content. It's to prevent the player from having to go back through areas they've already completed if they do not wish to. Fast travel is an option presented to the player, that you can decide to use or not to use, it is not forced upon you. BotW has fast travel for player convenience, not because getting from point a to point b is boring. You have to make the journey the first time to even get the ability to faSt travel in the first place.

Right, if you only have to use fast travel once in a while, no big deal. If you have to use it every 9 seconds, then maybe it should be designed better. Still, I don't have much problem with fast travel, and games used to make it a lot harder to travel quickly (looking at you, Morrowind, early SWG, etc). I fast traveled the f#$# out of Horizon and had no problem with it. In an ideal world, we would all say "traversing this world is so fun and amazing, I'd rather travel manually."

What's a bit different here is that I would say that the game world is really the star of Zelda.

So utterly, utterly tragic indeed.

Actually I think that image sums up the whole thread. I expected more from an Ori dev than "BotW is wrong because I dislike open world games". There are zero arguments in the whole thread that amount to anything more than personal taste.

I have no idea how someone could read the OP and then say this. He's not saying Zelda is "wrong". He said it could be improved in certain ways. If you think otherwise, then that's okay. But I do like the of that pic and then saying "I expected more from an Ori dev."

 

[Anth0ny]

So utterly, utterly tragic indeed.

Actually I think that image sums up the whole thread. I expected more from an Ori dev than "BotW is wrong because I dislike open world games". There are zero arguments in the whole thread that amount to anything more than personal taste.

Would you mind pointing me in the direction of a thread that has some arguments that aren't just personal taste

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Which is why BotW is doing this better than most other games, but if we look at games like Skyrim, this doesn't hold true anymore. You get out of the tutorial dungeon and now you can either run around in a mostly empty world or you can immediately fast travel to one of the towns or another place that seems interesting to you. You can do that right from the get-go and I'd assume that MOST people run around the world for 15-20 minutes until they get bored and then start fast-traveling to one of the markers on the map, cause there's probably something more interesting going on in the town (and there usually is, case the open worlds in Bethesda games aren't really a stroke of design genius, to put it mildly...).

Ok, but what's your point here? That Skyrim is a worse open world game than BotW? I agree with you, but this discussion is supposed to be about BotW. Bringing up what Skyrim does and why it's bad is irrelevant when you just admitted BotW doesn't suffer from the same problem. The point I'm making is that fast travel is not a detriment to BotW, as exploration is required to make use of it in the first place, and the exploration in BotW is meaningful and engaging.

 

[phanphare]

it's about good level design vs. bad level design

not to just disregard the rest of your post but for me you've not once justified this claim in regards to breath of the wild and have only explained why it's not your personal preference. so you say it's not apt at all but as of now it's really the only conclusion I can come to.

your comparison to a 2d castlevania game seems flimsy to me. so at its most basic level one game is 2d and the other is 3d. even if breath of the wild were totally empty, totally devoid of enemies, and totally flat, you'd never just be pushing right on the dpad. throw in everything else about each specific game and the comparison just doesn't seem apt. breath of the wild is totally open so choosing a destination and figuring out how to go about getting to that destination and what you'll do along the way is a huge part of the game. or intentionally not choosing a destination and just going out. you say "there absolutely were quite a LOT of places I had to pass where I literally did nothing other than running, climbing, running, climbing" and if you boil down your actions to that then it can sound boring but I feel like you're missing a lot of what makes the game really sing. maybe you ran, climbed, ran, and climbed but what about another player? did they do the same as you? did they go down the exact same route as you? did they see the same things along the way as you? did they discover the same secrets as you? engage in the same encounters as you? did they get sidetracked by something where you just carried on? etc. etc. etc. and furthermore did you have to just run, climb, run, climb, and run? was there another way for you to tackle that scenario? there probably was. there were probably a lot of different ways that you could have gone about what you did and you chose one of them. for me you're disregarding the player agency involved in almost every aspect of the game and the impact that can have on each player's individual experience. in doing so you're just boiling the game down to the literal actions performed. "well I just pushed left, then went to the right a bit, then climbed up a cliff, then ran to the left some more." it just seems disingenuous, especially with the comparisons you're bringing up where you're conflating different priorities and intentions with better or worse.

 

[thomasmahler]

Ok, but what's your point here? That Skyrim is a worse open world game than BotW? I agree with you, but this discussion is supposed to be about BotW. Bringing up what Skyrim does and why it's bad is irrelevant when you just admitted BotW doesn't suffer from the same problem. The point I'm making is that fast travel is not a detriment to BotW, as exploration is required to make use of it in the first place, and the exploration in BotW is meaningful and engaging.

The point is that BotW also suffers from the same problem of vast emptiness within the open world, only to a lesser degree.

 

[The Dude]

Ultimately tho, there's a reason Legend of Zelda has been relevant for 30 years, and this game carries on why.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Right, if you only have to use fast travel once in a while, no big deal. If you have to use it every 9 seconds, then maybe it should be designed better. Still, I don't have much problem with fast travel, and games used to make it a lot harder to travel quickly (looking at you, Morrowind, early SWG, etc). I fast traveled the f#$# out of Horizon and had no problem with it. In an ideal world, we would all say "traversing this world is so fun and amazing, I'd rather travel manually."

What's a bit different here is that I would say that the game world is really the star of Zelda.




I have no idea how someone could read the OP and then say this. He's not saying Zelda is "wrong". He said it could be improved in certain ways. If you think otherwise, then that's okay. But I do like the of that pic and then saying "I expected more from an Ori dev."

No, you are wrong with that assumption. No player will choose to use the traversal mechanics in every instance rather than fast travel, no matter how fun the traversal mechanics are, if doing so means repeating content they've already experienced to their satisfaction. And there is nothing wrong with that. Having options gives the player choice, allowing them to pick the method that works best for them. If you never want to use fast travel in BOTW you don't have to. Most players will want to make use of it though, so providing the option is appreciated.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

The point is that BotW also suffers from the same problem of vast emptiness within the open world, only to a lesser degree.

I don't agree with you, sorry. Every location in Breath of the Wild has some form of meaningful interaction you can choose to play with. Every slope can be shield surfed on, every forest has ingredients to find and animals to hunt, basically every location in the game has korok seeds to find, you can climb every mountain and glide to locations, or use them as a vantage point to plan out your exploration, or find hidden goodies tucked away. No space in breath of the wild is empty, except the desert region but even there you can sand seal surf, there are enemies to fight, treasures to find, resources to collect, sandstorms to contend with. You may not find all of this content enjoyable, but that doesn't mean it isn't there for the player to engage with.

 

[Basileus777]

BOTW balances exploration and convenience extremely well. If you are so ideologically opposed to fast travel that you refuse to make use of it even in a game where it is well designed and complain about the results, it's not the game that is the problem.

I'd agree with many complaints about BOTW, but it being a barren world that requires you to run through empty fields is not one of them.

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

This has been a good read. Every day I want to play this game more and more even though I've never played a Zelda game. Hopefully I am lucky enough to find a Switch this week.

 

[phanphare]

Would you mind pointing me in the direction of a thread that has some arguments that aren't just personal taste

it's less you having a personal preference for something and more you blatantly mischaracterizing the opinion of those you disagree with in an effort to bolster your own

 

[Yoshi]

I absolutely agree with the analysis in the original post and I have to add: Having played Ori, it was obvious to me that you / your studio has a (very welcome!) analytical way of approaching level design. Which Nintendo typically also does, but which has been less of a focus in Breath of the Wild. This does not make Breath of a Wild a bad game, but it loses some of the qualities that prior entries had.

 

[commish]

No, you are wrong with that assumption. No player will choose to use the traversal mechanics in every instance rather than fast travel, no matter how fun the traversal mechanics are, if doing so means repeating content they've already experienced to their satisfaction. And there is nothing wrong with that. Having options gives the player choice, allowing them to pick the method that works best for them. If you never want to use fast travel in BOTW you don't have to. Most players will want to make use of it though, so providing the option is appreciated.

I didn't say that "no player will choose to use the traversal methods in every instance." You can never (!!) really say "always" or "never" about most things, so I agree with you And I also didn't say they should never provide that option to gamers. We all expect it nowadays, and to create a large gameworld and make people spend 20 minutes running from quest to quest is just cruel. The days of setting autorun and making lunch are over, thankfully.

 

[The Dude]

The game is magical, honestly I don't see how any gamer doesn't love just sitting down and getting sucked into this world. It's become one of my all time favorite games, I love just exploring and doing the many tasks and missions I find, it's just a beautiful thing.

 

[Anth0ny]

it's less you having a personal preference for something and more you blatantly mischaracterizing the opinion of those you disagree with in an effort to bolster your own

The poster said: "There are zero arguments in the whole thread that amount to anything more than personal taste."


I'm asking for a thread that has some sweet arguments that are objective fact.

 

[Sheroking]

The point is that BotW also suffers from the same problem of vast emptiness within the open world, only to a lesser degree.

Neither game is "vastly empty", and your opinion that they are leads me to believe you fundamentally have a problem with open world games and the concept of exploration in them.

If I can ask, what open world game do you think does this better?

 

[thomasmahler]

Yeah, as far as the log ride analogy goes, the entire point of BotW is that you can cut the tree down and sail down the river freely rather than being guided through a scripted corridor sequence.

A tightly controlled amusement park ride is not the only way to have fun or feel rewarded. In fact it has problems of its own - the feeling that the player has no real input and is just jumping through hoops. The player may not end up feeling like a badass while waiting for the scripted enemies to pop-up and shoot them on cue - it may just be boring for some people.

This is actually a problem I see in the design of a lot of games. They rely on scripted, mechanical sequences designed to appear elaborate and dramatic but don't really have very interesting player interaction. Tomb Raider 2013 and Uncharted have been brought up, and here's a further observation: In Tomb Raider, I found the best parts were the open sections in which the player was free to move around stealthily and hunt or stalk adversaries. The "exciting" scripted cinematic sequences are - in most cases - the worst parts of the modern Tomb Raiders and feel like they're there because the designers felt obligated by convention.

And Uncharted is interesting too, because Naughty Dog seems consciously aware of the limitations of such game design; Uncharted 4 put a lot of work into making encounters more dynamic and even scripted vehicle sections are much more interactive with more possible outcomes based on player decision making.

But why go to these extremes? I'm not talking about on-rail sequences, I'm talking about shorter / more designed experiences are usually better than open and random ones, simply because you can actually have a designer there to ensure that the stretch of gameplay is just genuinely fun instead of 'potentially fun if you're lucky that you're doing that thing in the right place'.

Tomb Raider and Uncharted are very linear games for the most part and I don't think the comparison really works here.

I guess what I'm trying to get to is that I'd rather have a large world that's more along the lines of A Link to the Past (which if you play it the first time still feels pretty big...), something you can complete in 10-15 hours that isn't linear, but where every interaction has been well-designed versus a HUUUUGE open world like in Breath of the Wild where you do have large areas full of emptiness that no designer ever touched. I personally just never saw Zelda as a game that needs to be 100+ hours in length (which Nintendo apparently does, since that's what they've been trying to do with TP, Skyward Sword and BotW), especially since games like ALTTP and Super Metroid were 10-15 hour experiences that even now - 20+ years after they've been released - are held up as absolute masterpieces with timeless game design.

It'll be interesting to see how people will remember Breath of the Wild and how it'll be perceived 10 or 15 years down the road. With Open World Games, usually they do not really stand the test of time, since other games came along that did the Open World stuff better, had better physics, better interactions, etc. - And that's what these games are all about, since you need to make your own fun for the most part. But games like ALTTP absolutely stand the test of time and I'd challenge any designer to come up with a 2d Action Adventure that's as well designed as ALTTP was... and that's why I'm arguing for smaller worlds that are tightly designed instead of huge worlds that are way more empty and shallow.

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

Aren't Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time open world?

 

[phanphare]

The poster said: "There are zero arguments in the whole thread that amount to anything more than personal taste."


I'm asking for a thread that has some sweet arguments that are objective fact.

I think you're missing the point. it's not that you don't like something that other people do like it's that you are misrepresenting the opinions of those that you disagree with to prop up your own opinion. look at the portion of your post the other poster quoted.

also the OP is actually trying to argue good vs. bad level design in regards to breath of the wild and is positing that it is not just personal preference guiding his/her opinions. so there's that.

 

[thomasmahler]

I absolutely agree with the analysis in the original post and I have to add: Having played Ori, it was obvious to me that you / your studio has a (very welcome!) analytical way of approaching level design. Which Nintendo typically also does, but which has been less of a focus in Breath of the Wild. This does not make Breath of a Wild a bad game, but it loses some of the qualities that prior entries had.

Thank you, that's all I'm trying to say here

And yeah, I put 100 hours into Breath of the Wild, it'll most likely be my game of the year, but I think it's still a good thing to point out the flaws it has, so that these flaws could be ironed out in future games

 

[commish]

But games like ALTTP absolutely stand the test of time and I'd challenge any designer to come up with a 2d Action Adventure that's as well designed as ALTTP was... and that's why I'm arguing for smaller worlds that are tightly designed instead of huge worlds that are way more empty and shallow.

While I share the same perspective as you on this, I think we can all agree that the game is exactly what Nintendo was going for. They didn't want a small, tightly designed world. They wanted a big sprawling beast of a world. I wouldn't say one is necessarily better than the other, as it really boils down to taste. But I think what you're trying to say is that there are a few things Nintendo could have done to close that gap while keeping the big open world.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

I didn't say that "no player will choose to use the traversal methods in every instance." You can never (!!) really say "always" or "never" about most things, so I agree with you And I also didn't say they should never provide that option to gamers. We all expect it nowadays, and to create a large gameworld and make people spend 20 minutes running from quest to quest is just cruel. The days of setting autorun and making lunch are over, thankfully.

You said there is a problem when a game contains fast travel and the player chooses to use that fast travel rather than the traversal options provided to them. I'm saying that viewpoint is unrealistic. Now you are backtracking on what you said, which makes me wonder why you even bothered saying it in the first place.

'm guessing the thought is, if you have to introduce the concept of "fast travel", then you're really recognizing the fact that players probably don't want to spend their time traversing across the map back and forth. And if that's the case, then perhaps you should design your game where that isn't necessary.

That is taken directly from your post. I guess you changed your mind?

 

[Sheroking]

It'll be interesting to see how people will remember Breath of the Wild and how it'll be perceived 10 or 15 years down the road. With Open World Games, usually they do not really stand the test of time, since other games came along that did the Open World stuff better, had better physics, better interactions, etc. - And that's what these games are all about, since you need to make your own fun for the most part. But games like ALTTP absolutely stand the test of time and I'd challenge any designer to come up with a 2d Action Adventure that's as well designed as ALTTP was... and that's why I'm arguing for smaller worlds that are tightly designed instead of huge worlds that are way more empty and shallow.

Well this is an interesting statement because Ocarina of Time is widely perceived to be better than Link to the Past, even 19 years later, in spite of the fact that it is less guiding, less cohesive and has more open, empty space.

The fundamental flaw with your perspective here is that people enjoy exploring for content. It's more satisfying to explore, find something to do and do it to many of us than to be inevitably led to do something.

Perhaps this whole thing is less of the "developer's perspective" of questionable game design, and more of a personal diIsconnect for you as an individual?

 

[DecoReturns]

Aren't Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time open world?

Depends on who ask. Mario 64 is more overworld in my opinion.

 

[Basileus777]

Aren't Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time open world?

No. Mario 64 is a hub based game with instanced levels depending on what star you are going for. Ocarina of Time is largely linear.

 

[maxcriden]

Aren't Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time open world?

Mario 64 I'd say isn't, because it has defined levels and a hub world, however it is a precursor to open world games. OOT to me is an early example of console open world gaming, though. IIRC you haven't played either - personally I think OOT holds up significantly better than SM64, mainly because of camera and game focus, but SM64 is seminal and well worth checking out.

 

[Ansatz]

There is a big difference between going to an amusement park where designers have actually designed every inch for you to enjoy your experience and just taking a walk through a park - While the latter can obviously also be nice, if that's all you do all day, it gets boring quick, compared to you going to a theme park where somebody tried to design the place for you to just enjoy the hell out of it with varied experiences and the likes.

The thing is these cool moments happen organically in BotW and they feel just as meaningful as handcrafted scenarios are at their best. There are countless stories people shared in various threads since release with these crazy things and discoveries they experienced in what is seemingly a plain and innocent part of the world.

designing a space that large to actually all work together and that space oozing fun is an impossibility. Trust me

They already solved the issue of filling a large amount of space with interesting gameplay in BotW!!

Even the many trees there to seemingly enhance the game's cosmetics play a role in the gameplay loop described earlier in this thread; their function is to obscure your view, since the game is all about getting to a place with clear view, spotting a point of interest and working out a strategy to reach it. Every aspect of the game is connected in a meaningful way.

 

[commish]

You said there is a problem when a game contains fast travel and the player chooses to use that fast travel rather than the traversal options provided to them. I'm saying that viewpoint is unrealistic. Now you are backtracking on what you said, which makes me wonder why you even bothered saying it in the first place.

That is taken directly from your post. I guess you changed your mind?

I said a few times that I don't mind fast travel. I said it'd be great if games were designed so you don't have to fast travel all over the place, and that walking to and from places was more rewarding and fun. If you take my posts to mean that I think the addition of fast travel is a problem, even in the post you quoted, then I don't know what to say.

 

[Hero]

So we've gone from "threads he's trolled/derailed" to me giving my opinion on a game. Okay.


You seem to have a terrible time understanding that people have different taste in games and people expressing those opinions isn't a personal attack. You can still enjoy your game despite people bringing up issues with it on an internet message board. Not every game thread needs to be a complete circlejerk, even if it reviews well.

Your opinion amounts to 'I'm right, everyone else is wrong' or 'anyone who enjoys this thing I clearly don't like is misinformed.' Nobody made this a circle jerk thread but I was expecting a lot more critical analysis rather than 'man why can't BotW be like LttP.'

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

I only mention it because he said that open world games don't hold up. When 'See that mountain you can go there.' is still a famous line. And Mario 64 while maybe not truly open world was revolutionary for being a 3D sandbox.

 

[MTC100]

Why would I need to compare it to other open world games? Yes, I think Breath of the Wild is the best open world game out there - But I'm looking at how it could be made better, I'm not interested in "But is it better than Open World Game X?".

And there is not a single section in any 2D Zelda ever made by Nintendo where all you do is to move Link into one direction for even a full minute. Yes, sometimes there are screens where you just have bushes and enemies, but the thing with 2D Zeldas is that you can move to the next screen within seconds and usually that screen then has some other secret or cool interaction possibility. There's never a moment like in BotW where I literally run into the same direction over an empty field for a few minutes. Like, ever.

But is it really that bad having nothing happening for a full minute, you just riding your horse or trying to climb some mountain? I remember some occasions with the Witcher 3 when riding around, enjoying the view of a new found area, only for about 10-20 seconds and BAM! Something happens, you see a monster nest or some random quest was triggered, some location was found and the map was already marked with a lot of stuff. The game indirectly urged you to go there, do that, do that, this, here, don't forget this location, do that....

While it was great from a content filled kind of view it also destroyed a bit of the great atmosphere The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt builds so heavily on. I often thought, what if there weren't so much stuff to do, enemies or markers everywere? Well, I guess Breath of the Wild is somewhat the answer to that question and like you said it might be the best open world game there is, perhaps you analyze that it's fault is not having this open world packed with content -but maybe enjoyed the fact, that you were visiting such a vast world and might have been lost in thoughts while riding/running/climbing for a minute or two without anything special happening...

 

[thomasmahler]

Your opinion amounts to 'I'm right, everyone else is wrong' or 'anyone who enjoys this thing I clearly don't like is misinformed.' Nobody made this a circle jerk thread but I was expecting a lot more critical analysis rather than 'man why can't BotW be like LttP.'

Honestly, I think you have to be a bit jaded if you read through this thread and the points that were brought up and your statement is all you got out of it...

These things I brought up are discussions I have on a daily basis with our designers at Moon. We go over every little section of the worlds we build and ask ourselves: "Hey, is this fun enough yet? Do you have any better ideas? Could the player do more interesting things here? Are there enough possibilities to use all the abilities he has? Should this place here maybe have a puzzle in it? What type of enemy would make this particular section more exciting?" and so on and so on. That's literally what I do all day, apart from actually designing levels and making sure all other departments are also on track

And obviously, that clashes with what designers do when they're designing open world games, since due to the size of these worlds, you can't approach them with this mindset. I'm very much a perfectionist and I hate it when I look at a certain section in a game and it doesn't really 'click' yet - But if you design an open world game that is as big as the one in Breath of the Wild, you will absolutely end up with sections that don't click, simply because you can't put enough designers on making everything interesting. Even if you put a ton more people on it, there's still the pressure of time and process - 9 women can't make a baby in a month and all that

 

[maxcriden]

I only mention it because he said that open world games don't hold up. When 'See that mountain you can go there.' is still a famous line. And Mario 64 while maybe not truly open world was revolutionary for being a 3D sandbox.

Sure, I definitely see a connection between N64 Mario and Zelda and (what we know of) Switch Mario and BOTW. The game was absolutely praised as a pioneer in 3D sandbox gaming, on consoles, and you can probably draw a line from its popularity to that of GTA III, to Skyrim. The N64 games definitely seem to inspire a line of games that oddly ends up back at BOTW. Though the dungeons and focused design of the previous and especially most recent 3D Zelda games for me are missing in BOTW - though it definitely has things to offer that its predecessors do not. Skyward Sword is maybe the least open world "feeling" of the 3D Zelda games, and as that is one of my favorite games ever, I see its missing linearity and focus as BOTW's most significant flaw for me personally, though I recognize the game was received by fans as polarizing, so I understand how many feel BOTW is vastly superior, even though for me I don't know that I feel it is better. (I suspect my friend Yoshi might agree, we usually have similar tastes in games - so maybe he can articulate this POV better than I can).

 

[Kyzer]

I'm guessing the thought is, if you have to introduce the concept of "fast travel", then you're really recognizing the fact that players probably don't want to spend their time traversing across the map back and forth. And if that's the case, then perhaps you should design your game where that isn't necessary.

Yeah but designing a game around strictly not having a need for fast travel is a silly central focus. If you end up with a big world fast travel is an actual designed solution for traversal within that world, it doesnt necessarily mean that that it means traversing the world is unbearable. Its a nice boon. Imagine not having the option to fast travel, it doesnt really matter if the world was half the size and had twice as many fun things to do along the way, it still makes the game easier to play and you dont HAVE to do other things or travel, you can do what you want when you want.

 

[commish]

Yeah but designing a game around strictly not having a need for fast travel is a silly central focus. If you end up with a big world fast travel is an actual designed solution for traversal within that world, it doesnt necessarily mean that that it means traversing the world is unbearable. Its a nice boon. Imagine not having the option to fast travel, it doesnt really matter if the world was half the size and had twice as many fun things to do along the way, it still makes the game easier to play and you dont HAVE to do other things or travel, you can do what you want when you want.

Hahah guys I'm not anti fast travel! Someone said they didn't get what the OP was getting at, so I was trying to capture what I thought was his argument. I don't mind FT.