Why is linearity seen as a bad thing? Honestly, I prefer it in games, especially in Zelda. I feel like linearity makes a stronger, more focused experience and Skyward Sword greatly benefited from it. It's my favorite Zelda game because of its superb story, controls and music. There's not much fat to it, it's all super solid. It's a focused, streamlined experience and I wish/hope more Zeldas use that formula. Unfortunately that doesn't look like the case with Zelda U :/
It's not, but non-linear progression tends to be a bonus in adventure style games. When the player has some agency in where they go next, it boosts the sense of exploration. When it's handled in a controlled manner, only making a set of locations available at a time, this can be preserved WITH all the streamlining (I like to call this "punctuated non-linearity", with a linear set of non-linear segments. Ocarina of Time does that)
If anything Skyward Sword didn't need to be linear to deliver it's story. SS's story was very sparse, concentrated almost exclusively on major cutscenes (as opposed to other 3D Zeldas, where you would often visit a new area, and encounter a somewhat isolated story for that area). The moments between the sets of three dungeons usually were pretty hollow and storyless.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
Why is linearity seen as a bad thing? Honestly, I prefer it in games, especially in Zelda. I feel like linearity makes a stronger, more focused experience and Skyward Sword greatly benefited from it. It's my favorite Zelda game because of its superb story, controls and music. There's not much fat to it, it's all super solid. It's a focused, streamlined experience and I wish/hope more Zeldas use that formula. Unfortunately that doesn't look like the case with Zelda U :/
It's not, but non-linear progression tends to be a bonus in adventure style games. When the player has some agency in where they go next, it boosts the sense of exploration. When it's handled in a controlled manner, only making a set of locations available at a time, this can be preserved WITH all the streamlining (I like to call this "punctuated non-linearity", with a linear set of non-linear segments. Ocarina of Time does that)
Every 3D Zelda except for the first few dungeons of the Wind Waker does that.
And your thesis isn't an objective truth. Freedom of exploration can benefit something like Skyrim, but Zelda games are exactly as good to me with or without linear ordering. What matters is the quality and diversity of the content.
Guys, guys, guys. Despite what they said I'm PRETTY SURE Zelda U will come out tomorrow. I'm gonna not listen to what people tell me all the way to gamestop...
"Nintendo said it won't be at E3" just means "let's see if Nintendo changes their minds again". I mean, they were also certain about Zelda coming out this year and not making mobile games.
That being said, I think Nintendo loses shockingly little by not having Zelda there, as it isn't like showing off previews of games early has made any real changes for Wii U sales.
Why is linearity seen as a bad thing? Honestly, I prefer it in games, especially in Zelda. I feel like linearity makes a stronger, more focused experience and Skyward Sword greatly benefited from it. It's my favorite Zelda game because of its superb story, controls and music. There's not much fat to it, it's all super solid. It's a focused, streamlined experience and I wish/hope more Zeldas use that formula. Unfortunately that doesn't look like the case with Zelda U :/
It's not, but non-linear progression tends to be a bonus in adventure style games. When the player has some agency in where they go next, it boosts the sense of exploration. When it's handled in a controlled manner, only making a set of locations available at a time, this can be preserved WITH all the streamlining (I like to call this "punctuated non-linearity", with a linear set of non-linear segments. Ocarina of Time does that)
Every 3D Zelda except for the first few dungeons of the Wind Waker does that.
And your thesis isn't an objective truth. Freedom of exploration can benefit something like Skyrim, but Zelda games are exactly as good to me with or without linear ordering. What matters is the quality and diversity of the content.
Nope. Aside from MM, which I'm unsure of since I haven't played it, all 3D Zeldas have a firmly established dungeon order. WW is particularly odd because the Earth and Wind Temple really didn't need to be sequential.
Freedom of exploration is a fundamental part of what adventure games are. That doesn't mean Zelda needs to be Skyrim (in other words, it doesn't need to be a full open-world game), but opening up more of the game to the player at a particular time can only help that sense. The reason it's not done is because often takes more work, forcing the designers to create story arcs that can be done in various orders, and/or slightly modifying dialogue to fit a different order.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
"Nintendo said it won't be at E3" just means "let's see if Nintendo changes their minds again". I mean, they were also certain about Zelda coming out this year and not making mobile games.
That being said, I think Nintendo loses shockingly little by not having Zelda there, as it isn't like showing off previews of games early has made any real changes for Wii U sales.
I feel like Nintendo could generate an insane amount of hype if they announced "LOL JK, Zelda is coming out 2015, here's a demo"
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
Why is linearity seen as a bad thing? Honestly, I prefer it in games, especially in Zelda. I feel like linearity makes a stronger, more focused experience and Skyward Sword greatly benefited from it. It's my favorite Zelda game because of its superb story, controls and music. There's not much fat to it, it's all super solid. It's a focused, streamlined experience and I wish/hope more Zeldas use that formula. Unfortunately that doesn't look like the case with Zelda U :/
It's not, but non-linear progression tends to be a bonus in adventure style games. When the player has some agency in where they go next, it boosts the sense of exploration. When it's handled in a controlled manner, only making a set of locations available at a time, this can be preserved WITH all the streamlining (I like to call this "punctuated non-linearity", with a linear set of non-linear segments. Ocarina of Time does that)
Every 3D Zelda except for the first few dungeons of the Wind Waker does that.
And your thesis isn't an objective truth. Freedom of exploration can benefit something like Skyrim, but Zelda games are exactly as good to me with or without linear ordering. What matters is the quality and diversity of the content.
Nope. Aside from MM, which I'm unsure of since I haven't played it, all 3D Zeldas have a firmly established dungeon order. WW is particularly odd because the Earth and Wind Temple really didn't need to be sequential.
Freedom of exploration is a fundamental part of what adventure games are. That doesn't mean Zelda needs to be Skyrim (in other words, it doesn't need to be a full open-world game), but opening up more of the game to the player at a particular time can only help that sense. The reason it's not done is because often takes more work, forcing the designers to create story arcs that can be done in various orders, and/or slightly modifying dialogue to fit a different order.
That doesn't disprove my point at all. I established that making an adventure game non-linear takes work. My point is that, at the end of the day, non-linearity almost always helps.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
That doesn't disprove my point at all. I established that making an adventure game non-linear takes work. My point is that, at the end of the day, non-linearity almost always helps.
It does this part: "Freedom of exploration is a fundamental part of what adventure games are..."
Paper Mario the Thousand Year Door is linear, all 3D Zeldas are linear, All Metroid Prime games are linear main quest wise. They are also some of the best games in their respective genres. You can state your ideology 7 times to Sunday, nonlinearity is not inherently superior to linearity in any way, nor vice versa.
Not everything needs to be a exploration-based open world game, for Franceska's sake!
Every game also has freedom in side quests. I think the idea of non-linearity is quite overrated. ALbW tried this and became very mediocre as a result. The any order aspect was poorly implemented for the sake of a new idea.
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
Combat felt good in ALBW. The story and characters were interesting and charming. I liked the presentation and the item upgrade system. It was just weak, easy puzzles in most of the dungeons that dragged it down. I guess because you could do them in any order, Aonuma felt it was necessary to make them all really easy to avoid newby-unfriendly difficulty spikes. Almost every dungeon in the game was easier than all of the dungeons in A Link to the Past.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Difficulty doesn't make a game better if it's not built on solid ground to begin with. A Link Between Worlds just didn't have much quality content; story or gameplay-wise. The world was largely copy-pasted, the dungeons were forgettable, and the story was a single cutscene at the end.
I hated the rental system and nonlinear dungeon structure. It just plain removed the progression and difficulty curve from the game.
That would be like going into Mario and taking out the world map. Now you can play the levels in any order with no rhyme, reason, and certainly no game design. You don't learn anything and it's all just meaningless noise here you go.
If nonlinearity can add freedom and exploration than linearity adds coherence, structure, and focus. A game needs all three of those things however linear it is.
And can I just say, 2D Zelda combat is too simple. There's noting to it, just button mashing. It needs more attacks or something to add complexity and keep it interesting because it's literally just Zelda 1 with a 360 degree axis.
And can I just say, 2D Zelda combat is too simple. There's noting to it, just button masking. It needs more attacks or something to add complexity and keep it interesting because it's literally just Zelda 1 with a 360 degree axis.
Ehh, the only real difference between combat in ALBW and a 3D Zelda was lack of Z-targeting and first person aiming with items, and that just comes down to needing more precise targeting when translating combat to a 3D space.
I think the problem isn't complexity in what you can do. It's lack of what enemies do. Imagine 2D Zelda combat that actually made you be precise with blocking, use a variety of items, etc. Enemies that swarm you, that sort of thing. One of the most memorable things for me in Ocarina of Time were the Lizalfos enemies in Dodongo Cavern. It was the first time in a Zelda game that allowed and encouraged you to use more advanced maneuvering techniques like blocking and dodging and it blew my mind as a kid. There hasn't been that sort of thing in a 2D Zelda game, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be.
Forums
Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Posts 2,181 to 2,200 of 15,210
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic