Eiji Aonuma Explains That The Legend of Zelda for Wii U Will Push the Hardware, But That the Series Has Always Been "Open World"

I agree that Zelda games are very open world, but my only problem was that there was little or nothing to do in them.

Hope it truly is the turning point for the Wii U. Can't decide whether I am looking forward more to this or "Xenoblade Chronicles X". anyway, as long as I endure the current lack of retail Wii U games, I should have an awesome end of year in front of the TV.

I don't need a single bit more information on this game to let me know that it is going to be incredible. I know it will be.

Zelda since the SNES days had plenty of optional things to do other than the dungeons. The issue is that the in between places were mostly barren and boring, especially since the N64 days. About the only 3D game that attempted to address it was Majora's Mask by having a smaller and more active world.

Zelda has definitely always been open world, it's just that this one looks set to be more open than any before it have been. If it's true that dungeons can be tackled in any order the player chooses, then there's much to look forward to.

"A huge, seamlessly unfolding world is something that can't be achieved if the hardware isn't advanced enough." - Ultima VII managed it in 1992 (And better than pretty much anything else since).

The SNES port understandably was cut back but any system after that should have been able to handle it. (It was a 20MB game).

Windwaker is pretty open.

I just want them to have good bosses and puzzles. They haven't had many of those in a long time. Most bosses are way too easy (simple to figure out, require the easy his, have bright eyeballs, and require the weapon from that dungeon...) and the puzzles are way too simple and rehashed (hit an eyeball with arrows, hit diamonds with weapon, step on block...).
Also, no tutorials and no nagging.
Other than that, I'm excited.

I'm sure that for many, this will be the game that justifies getting a Wii U.

Pretty sure that when this new Zelda was revealed, this was exactly what I said about the franchise--the goal had always been to be open-world. It's just that Nintendo has few, if any, good ideas about how to accomplish this, particularly when compared to say, Rockstar or Bethesda.

I'm sure for some this will be the time to buy a Wii U, but I feel Xenoblade has more pull, reason being, the Zelda fans, are really Nintendo fans, and a good chunk probably bought the system for a number of other games, Xenoblade is farther reaching, to non Nintendo fans on other consoles. Will Xenoblade sell more than Zelda, probably not, but I think it will give it a run for its money.

Remember on the January 2013 Nintendo Direct, when Iwata first announced the New Legend of Zelda for Wii U. They said they were "re-thinking the conventions of Zelda".

So, besides "open world", I'm guessing a multiplayer mode, or maybe a online multiplayer that doesn't affect the main story mode.

I'm so excited for this game. And if all the gamepad does is give me a map, I'll be happy. I've come to appreciate that feature in larger-world games. Although just like Ocarina of Time 3D I do like first person aiming with different tools/weapons, moving the gamepad around would be nice.

It's not open world if the world isn't open. If I really only have access to one or two areas at a time because of the story or item-acquisition progression, it isn't open world.

In the original Legend of Zelda, you had an open world to explore. You, of course, had to get some items to get into certain dungeons or find certain secrets and you'd likely be quickly killed in most areas without more hearts or better equipment, but you were allowed to try. Twilight Princess, however, gave you one small portion of the world map at a time, literally using large, inpenetrable walls to block off the rest. That is the textbook definition of a closed world.

If Aonuma thinks every game has been open world, then I'm moving forward with some hesitancy in my hype. I was hopeful for a 3D game in the vein of the original. It will be a real shame if it turns out all pur expectations are naught simply because the director doesn't know what gaming terms mean.

When you think about it, there really isn't much of difference between open world and linear.

Super Metroid has sections that are linear and while the game is still open ended, you still have to defeat the bosses required to reach the final stage which itself is linear.

I think the better question to ask here is whether it will tweak the formula while still having that Zelda feel. If they were to make side quests that can be done without the requirement of a specific item (depending on the side quest anyways) That would be a step up because there always is a trading quest that gives you the best item very late in the game and that requires a lot of backtracking. But if they did it so that you can do backtracking but can also get the item another way, that would be awesome.

Zelda has always pushed the hardware it's on and I'm excited to see what the power of the Wii U will allow Aonuma and his team to accomplish.

I wouldn't call ss open world

Hopefully all the dungeons aren't equal in difficulty. With having access to any dungeon in any order, I hope all the dungeons aren't short and easy like in ALBW.

"Zelda games have always allowed you to roam and explore a huge world."

True for Zelda 1 and ALttP. Not so for OoT or SS.

As much as I love Zelda games and I highly respect Aonuma, I have to disagree with the "we've had as large a world as can be realised with the hardware" statement, because that's simply not true. XC on Wii was many many times bigger than SS. Now, of course I know that Zelda games tend to go with filling the world with stuff to do over making a huge world, but still, that statement isn't true because quite a few games on the Wii were bigger than SS.

Ha for some reason I found the honesty about the gamepad map refreshing. There's no need to incorporate unnecessary gimmicks with the gamepad just for the sake of. Utilize it in a way that makes the most sense! If for the majority of the time it's map functionality than so be it.

The only game that has used the Gamepad right — that I own — is Deus Ex. That game uses the Gamepad exactly how it was meant. I hope that Zelda uses it in a similar manner. But I also hope there are options. I would rather not play with the Gamepad if I don't have to.

@crimsoncavalier : Don't forget Mass Effect 3 and Batman Arkham games.
Those who made Deus EX 3 for Wii U, also made Wii U version of Mass Effect 3.

Straight Right made Deus EX 3 and ME 3 on Wii U.
Straight Right are currently working on a secret AAA third party game for Wii U. They reconfirmed that before last xmas.

The writer hit it head on when he mentioned how it is about how things unfold and tasks are laid out. I love the old style of RPG's of "find a town member, he'll tell you something as a hint, so you go do it". REALLY disappointed that things are moving towards "Do you accept this QUEST? PUT IT IN YOUR QUEST LOG! KILL 10 DEER!"

I don't want to feel like I'm "accomplishing tasks", I want to feel like every move I make is progressing towards saving the world. This was the 1 gripe I had with Xenoblade, and a recent screenshot showed me XCX will also do this, which really disappointed me (Still my 2nd most anticipated game, next to ZeldaU)

Ex-CITE-eeed !!!

@Pod Definitely true for me. There's a lot more - released or otherwise - that I will love to play, but this is the game that makes my getting the hardware inevitable.

@crimsoncavalier
I agree with you so much!

@Ventilator

I didn't forget those games. I just haven't played them. I've only played DE which is why I can only speak for that game. It used the map perfectly though.

I can kinda see why people would think that the Zelda game were open world but really they weren't. The first legend of zelda game and a link between worlds were really the only 2 open world games as you could tackle anything you want.

You couldn't go to half the areas in the other titles without having to do something else in order to progress.

I'm interested to see if the development of Xenoblade X has influenced the development of Zelda U. Both games have open worlds, gamepad navigation, and online components. Monolith Soft has helped develop previous Zelda games as well.

@Yorumi kind of how I feel when playing Fallout. I have been SideQuesting so much that I haven't even progressed story. story wise I'm still in the beginning.

Linear is open world?Oh god i'm just going to call it,Zelda U is going to be open world but the world will be empty with just linear missions to accompany you.Eiji open world is with linear missions that's it, and that scares me.

@midnafanboy Funny that, that would actually get me interested in this Legend of Zelda instalment if that were the case. All the talk of open world has put me off getting this upcoming Zelda game, particularly if it's open world to a Skyrim scale (which I personally grew bored of very quickly, really not my cup of tea).

If it were to be of a more linear nature, or at least have a direction focus equivalent to other Zelda games (aside from the 1st one), then that will go a good way in convincing me to get the game.

@Quorthon True for the old games, but this one seems to be indeed open world. Previous ones (bar the first one and Alttp) weren't exactly open world.

Im hoping ninty will deliver. But im not really expecting something I would see out of bethesda...(would love to be proved wrong though)

Im not sure i'm particularly bothered if a game is open world or not. What difference does it make if you can visit a location that you can't do anything in until you meet a particular requirement or have a particular item. Xenoblade was open world but it made no difference if the enemies were 10 times more powerful than your characters. I'm not really sure what value it adds to a game.

@Yorumi Well if that's how you say what open world is, then the Super Mario series pretty much has that. 64 allows you to explore the worlds freely and doing some of the missions is optional so is Sunshine, Galaxy 1 and 2.

While its true that a lot of gamers don't really focus on story based quests when playing open world games, part of the fun lies in the story quests so you can get better upgrades to ease exploration and discovery.

@BassLostie A multiplayer aspect has seemed interesting since that was said.

@LetsGoRetro Monolith Soft said that completing quests can affect the story and its outcomes. So its different from the first Xenoblade.

When I hear "the Series Has Always Been "Open World"" it makes me feel like what he's really saying is "Legend of Zelda for Wii U isn't actually open world like Skyrim" (where you can actually go practically anywhere from the beginning of the game, although there is a good chance many places will kill you if you're under leveled). I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, many good games are scripted, but don't call a game open world if it's not.

I dunno what pisses me off the most: this guy spiting lies or the dumb gamers that believe them. I guess is both.

Zelda from 1 to ocarina of time were open world, specially the first 2 ones. Then came Majora's with its speedrun gameplay and WW with his boring empty ocean and Skyward sword with its on-rails world and now this jerk wants to pretend we didn't notice it?!

The day this guy retires I'll throw a damn party.

@minotaurgamer lol. Don't sleep in a cactus field next time.

If this one has co-op then it's a first day buy

"Open world" has been plaguing the industry too much lately; as a buzzword it's overused and misguided, it's just... bad.

Game design should carefully and attentively be balancing the number of choices (including exploration) provided to the player at any given time, since both too few and too many can be bad things. Having an "open world" is just a slapdash way to make sure you avoid the too-few part by stripping out progression and throwing everything at the player at once. You can make just about any game world "open" by just tearing out any sense of pacing and progression, but it's often not the right thing to do.

Imagine if the original Super Mario Bros. didn't put you through levels in order, but just gave you a menu at the start to select any level from. Boom, Open World Super Mario Bros. Would that be a good thing?

The goal shouldn't be for a world to be "open," it should be for a world to be "rich" - to give players detailed, interactive, interwoven, and meaningful content that draws them in, whether it's during a time of choice and exploration, or dramatic narrative progression. Incidentally, that's why everyone's going gaga right now over the Majora's Mask remaster - whether you call it open or closed, the world in that game was just so damn rich, far and away above what any Zelda game's done before or since, filled with unique characters and compelling vignettes at every turn.

If Aonuma wants to say "Open world? We were doing that before it was cool!", I hope it's a way of downplaying the term by putting in historical perspective, because it's a buzzword that deserves to be ridiculed. I can only hope he is just using it cynically.

I don't know if it's fair to claim that The Legend of Zelda series has always been open world, but I can certainly understand the sentiment that the series has always tried to provide as much of an open-world experience as it can. Well ... except for Skyward Sword.

the series has always been an open world with usually gated entryways. I think they are going for a seamless world at this point. If Link leaves an area does that area still progress and react? For all the bugs Bethesda games have that is one thing they have always tried to implement. The world is still alive even when you aren't there.

Lol no. No they have not always been open world. Ocarina, Majora, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword were not open world.

@DarkKirby If it isn't this then I will be crushed. That isn't Skyrim. That's ZELDA. The Legend of Zelda on NES was first to do that. I'm tired of playing Ocarina rehashes. The hardware is finally capable of making an HD 3D game based on the formula of the original Zelda. That's what it needs to be.

And it begins. All the idiots who thought this game would be an ambitious open world game like Skyrim, GTA, Red Dead Redemption will be disappointed just like I thought they were going to be.

Critics will nitpick and compare it to Skyrim and the game's ratings/word of mouth will hurt for it.

I don't know what's so great about a game being "open world."

I've played a lot of RPGs that aren't open world and I still think they're pretty massive and open...

And I've played games typically classified as open world and it's a pain trying to play them. Unless you know who's giving you story missions, it's a trek toward death. You go left, you die. Right, you die. Unless you get levels/items from the story, you can't even really play the game.

I don't have a problem with Zelda's world and I don't know why anyone does.

@Yorumi I think I see what you're getting at... though I'm not sure "artificial" is the right word. Continuous vs discrete gating, right? Being high-level gates content as much as having item A does, but it fuzzes and hides the line between whether a player can or can't do it (kind of a Sorites paradox of difficulty). Fair enough as a concept, and I can see how it's the sort of thing that would come up more often in open world games.

Fuzzy difficulty doesn't define a genre or core design, though, any more than item-gated difficulty does. Take Metroid and Super Metroid, for example (though admittedly maybe not the best example). Both platformers, but while Super Metroid's gating is heavily item-based (it's also typically regarded as being a brilliant game), the original Metroid only had a handful of core mechanic-changing items, relying more on the fuzzy difficulty of whether you had enough missiles and energy tanks for most of the game.

Or for another example of fuzzy difficulty not in an open-world game, take Kid Icarus: Uprising. Another great game, with a clever sliding scale difficulty system wherein you would bet a certain amount of hearts (currency) before each level in order to pump up the stage's difficulty linearly. Bigger risk, bigger reward. A radically different game than, say, Skyrim, but it still achieves that key fuzziness of the player going into a stage without knowing whether it's a challenge they can, or should, be able to overcome yet or not.

There's a well-established formula by now for achieving fuzzy difficulty through using an open world, sure, but it's not the only way to get there, and if it's fuzzy difficulty you're looking for, then being open world is just a means to an end. If being completely open isn't the point of using an open world, then it's still just as bad a buzzword going around these days, because it's sending developers and customers chasing after the wrong things. I guess "fuzzy world" wouldn't fly so well with the hardcore crowd, though, would it?

You can't fault Aonuma if he's interpreting the term "open world" at literal face value, but I definitely agree with you that it's unfortunate. Strong difficulty-based progression is really tough to get right in a Zelda framework, since most of the series doesn't have the easy knobs of player exp/levels or upgradeable equipment to turn. Going modern open-world would be a rough road for them to follow.

Open world usually means sidequests more interesting than the main story and I usually never finish that. Well at least in my experience. I actually did finish Skyrim but it was so anticlimactic. I haven't played the DLC yet though.

Yakusa is pretty sweet and has TONS of side stuff to do but the progress in the side quests needs a balance with the story that I find most open games don't have.

I am all for Zelda having a huge world and lots of side quests but if itbends up like most open world games it would be horrible.

I have yet to finish Red Dead Redemption, any Saint's row game, any GTA game, Far Cry 3, AC4, and a bunch of others. They are fun games but it's more fun to mess around then beat the game. Lego City was a fun open world game besides the load times but I think the only reason I beat that was the story was entertaining unlike GTA, Saint's Row(not the first 2) and RDR are pretty entertaining stories as well though.

Definitely looking forward to Xenoblade X way more, since I know it's going to be amazing. I'm holding out for Zelda though, see how it develops and see how well put together and detailed it is. I mean,i know they'll out together a solid game, but I don't know if it'll be something that's exciting or if it'll get boring and repetitive. Would be nice to have a more story focused game with an entirely new world, compared to older games. We'll see how it turns out I guess by E3.

The term "Open World" is clearly up to interpretation.

@Yorumi (a few posts ago now) Well, I'm going to come out and confess that I'm at a disadvantage in arguing these points, since my backlog stretches, in Zelda terms, all the way back to Twilight Princess days. I guess that's what I get for just now ramping down a ten-year World of Warcraft binge - though there's a perfect example of a game that embraces (to some crazy extremes) all the virtues I think you're attributing to open-world games, and was a huge success, but was never marketed as being "open world." Games just need to build the world they want to create, build it alive, make smart decisions about how to expand, limit, and deceive players (the illusion of choice is a beautiful thing, yo!), and whether it's open or not should end up being a moot point. Feel like I've lost my original argument thread now, though. Open-world posting ftw!

Anyway, in particular, I need to play A Link Between Worlds sometime, as I've heard it takes some interesting steps at least in the direction of some of the nonlinearity you're hoping for from a Zelda game. Your dream Zelda, though... it sounds great, but there's a lot of conflict between the mainstay Zelda theme of "tools that fundamentally change the game" and "you can go anywhere from the get-go, if you're skilled or clever enough." That's one of the costs of nonlinearity and open-worldness, is that holding those up as guiding pillars really limits the amount of fundamental game-changing you can do over the course of the game. [edit: Yeah, ok, that's really not what you were suggesting. My brain gets tired while rambling, sorry 'bout that. Your idea about item combinations is cool, though still sounds next to impossible to pull off in practice.]

I'd be damned proud to be a Nintendo fan if the Zelda team could somehow find a way to perfectly reconcile them, though.

Yeah, I've discussed myself into tired submission here with my walls o' text (be sure to catch my edit note to the previous post where I tripped over my own argument), so I'll be quiet now; you guys take care. Aonuma, just build the game that you'd have fun playing, darn it!

@minotaurgamer Link to the Past was as linear as hell. Zelda 2 was also linear, but with little sidequests in between. OOT was as linear as LTTP. Wind Waker was the second most nonlinear game and Majora's Mask third. You was right about one thing and one thing only and that is Skyward Sword being linear. Yeah, it obvious that you don't have any idea what the heck you're talking about.

Even though I can't prove a opinion wrong, but I can say they are terrible. You complain about when a game is linear, yet you complain about the game being nonlinear. What the hell do you want? You want the same person that created many Zelda fans favorite Zelda game, if that isn't self righteous I don't know what is.

(Now that I'm done ranting, I don't really think every Zelda game is nonlinear. Then again, it would depend on what you think is nonlinear.)

While open world is nice, most of the time, I love linear game more. Sure, we can have open exploration from the beginning, but for me, that could also make me lost in the game, not knowing what to do next. Obviously, that depends to the game and how the execution is. If the world is exciting enough, I don't mind spending hours mindlessly running around in the game. Though, if the game become boring, that just makes me lose interest to finish it.

So far, the new Zelda looks neat.

@Tsurii897 Again, it just depends on your definition of nonlinear. I don't find OOT nonlinear because you can't really do much besides god to point a to point b for half of the game. ALttP for the same reason. I find Wind Waker nonlinear because there is so much to explore even at the beginning of the game. You may not be able to do much with the non plot related islands, but just like Zelda 1 and it dungeons you can still go inside them. Majora's Mask is not as nonlinear and for one reason only, the masks. The masks block most of the dungeons so you can't really explore them at all. Not only that but you can't even visit the general location of the dungeon because of the masks.

@Tsurii897 Greatfish Isle is very, very early in the game. In OOT and ALttP (am I the only person that think OOT is just 3D ALttP) you have to compete 3 dungeons just for the game to get good, I can't really say anything about MM, maybe MM is more nonlinear than Wind Waker.

The only Zelda game that's truly "open world" is The Legend of Zelda. Every other game is hampered by linearity and various conventions that started with ALttP and OoT, two games claimed to be masterpieces (they are masterpieces). It's a bit like Resident Evil, don't you think? Resident Evil 4 is claimed to be one of the best games of all time, yet is the very game that set RE down the non-survival horror path that people didn't like.

In any case, yes every Zelda game has a big world to explore to an extent, but only LoZ was truly open world.

@electrolite77 : I don't use Twitter at all. I mailed them personally.

@Robotron2084 : I don't use Twitter at all, because i don't like it. I mailed Straight Right and asked.

@crimsoncavalier : Yes. Sadly Straight Right is one of the few to actually utilize Wii U pad.

Open World? Since when? The only games close to an Open World experience that I remember so far were the original (NES) and ALBW (3DS).

@unrandomsam I have to correct you dude, SNES Zelda: A Link to the Past was not 20 MB. Neither was any SNES cart that size. It was actually only 1MB. That's 1/20th of the size you claim. They used to label SNES cart sizes in Mb (large case M, lower case b), Zelda being a 8Mb cart. MB represents MegaByte (large case M, large case B), and Mb represents MegaBit, there are 8 bits, in 1 byte. The largest sizes of SNES cartridges were 32Mb, like Donkey Kong Country, SSF2, and maybe the only game was 48 Mb, which was Star Ocean (Japan release only) I think the man who makes Zelda, knows what he's talking about. And you need to learn the evolution of data in it's proper measurements. Go learn about it.

Mr Aonuma, please be completely aware that Skyward Sword does not fall under the definition of "open-world" by any stretch of the imagination.

The emphasis is on "seamless",
seamless transitions between areas (like the overworld of Wind Waker).

My favourite part is you stay immersed: There won't be hardware limitations/distractions like loading screens that pull you out of the game world.

Well like the first person to comment said some of the zelda games didnt really have much in their "opened world" so im just hoping this new one does.

If they ever were to make a zelda game with a open world i would like that it had towns or certain places that acted like majoras mask there things were different each day that would be interesting to see.

Looks like some fans may be disappointed with the game then if thats his understanding of the phrase "open world". I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt and say he just misunderstands the phrase, he's probably taking it a bit literally and assuming it means the world feels wide-open and vast.

He keeps talking about feeling like you're on an adventure, so that seems to be it. Its not so much a lie as unintentional misinformation. Its not good of course, he also kept comparing the game to Skyrim, so he might not fully understand it's appeal either.

Lots of mention of better boss fights. This is way out there, but i would love some style of constant "z target" locking and then have some boss fights with a sort of soulcalibur/zelda feel. But regardless, as long as the game is full of story and passion, i dont give a crap!

@Yorumi I should warn you that this reply may be a long one, but I’ll try to be as ‘to the point’ as I can be.

The problem I have with open world games, or in this particular case, Skyrim, is the constant questionability of whether I’m missing vital things or doing things in an… incorrect manner per say. For instance, I do enjoy taking on side quests within an area, but in Skyrim, it is not quite so clear how many side quests they are, where they’ll take you, and furthermore, whether I’m to the point of progress when I take on the side quest.

It leaves me wondering whether I am at the right level or have the right amount of skills to take on the side quest. Furthermore, if I take on too many of these abundance of side quests, I’m worried about over levelling to a point where the game becomes too easy. Skyrim doesn’t give a clear indicator of level requirements; it doesn’t have a clear route for tackling side quests in any order, which is a nuisance for me. I also find it troublesome to balance the time spent doing side quests and the main objective, as I certainly don’t want to spend a day where I make no main game progress, but I also do not wish to either leave the entirety of the side quest portion of the game untouched or risked being under-levelled/not having decent equipment for the main story.

Choice is something I appreciate, but I feel that too much freedom within a game causes it to lose focus as it were. It pushes aside the main objectives focus, in turn dwindling my motivation and distracting me with many additional features. Within a game like Skyrim, I feel it’s open world approach does little to motivate pursuing the main quest, and too many side quest avenues open up too early within the game. From what I played, there was never a point the game tried to focus me back onto the main quest, either by giving me a reason for tackling the main quest (be it through story, or character motivation) or through limiting how many side quests I could within an area at certain points within the main campaign.

It’s true that I could have set forth on the main campaign, but my concerns regarding not having done enough given there was nothing to indicate I had done a decent amount of side quests or having effectively levelled/equipped myself put me off this. Combine this with other problems I had with Skyrim in particular, such as its lack of motivation for doing the main quest (your character has no motivation, the game doesn’t do much to attach you to any of its characters, and the civil war seems to be having more of an effect on the land than the dragons), or it’s average gameplay when playing from a third person perspective (admittedly leaps and bounds better than my small time with Oblivion, but still not too great, and I avoid first person whenever possible).

I realise that this all personal opinion, but it is my take on why I usually dislike open world games, or at least the kind of which games like Skyrim offered. If you disagree on my reasoning’s as to why I dislike the feel of open world games, then fair enough, this is to serve merely as explanation of my own thoughts and not as a method of convincing that one opinion is better over the other. In the case that Zelda Wii U is open world, for me I feel it’ll be a less enjoyable experience and not one I wish to partake in, as I prefer focused main objectives with occasional side quests, rather than having to construct my own order of story based objectives and multiple side quests filled with uncertainty. For all those who enjoy those types of games, or wish for Zelda U to be open world, then I hope they’ll enjoy that game if it turns out like that, but it’ll be one I shall unlikely enjoy.

@unrandomsam
Ultima VII released to a world of computers that could barely support it. Only a few expensive machines could try and claim "seamless" at that time as everyone else was experiencing a choppy and slow game. Origin was notorious for doing this, actually. Not disparaging the game as it was super influential and forward thinking. It's just that, in my mind, it doesn't apply to this argument. Besides, previously he has expounded on how difficult it was to accomplish the seamless nature after the transition to 3D games.

For instance, Link to the Past was just about seamless. No load times and besides the shifting of size when entering buildings and caverns and temples, it was a continual connected, open world.

@liljmoore I find that mainy open world games have super empty placeholders for people or "things" but really it's just empty with nothing to figure out or do, while most Zelda games have something to explore or a secret to reveal or puzzle to figure out everywhere. I guess it's what you put you're value on. Sadly, when Skyward Sword tried to make everything, everywhere a puzzle to unlock people complained of the whole game being in a corridor. It's tough to balance, but I find Zelda often errs on the opposite side of what you are suggesting.

The real key to me is that non-linear nature of the original Zelda and the size and scope felt by the game was expanded perceptually by the difficulty and skill needed to advance. I'd like to see that balance return to the series. It's always so fun to find ways to use your skill to do things out of order or skip parts entirely and yet Zelda games, over time, have made that close to impossible aside from obscure game glitches.

I wasn't totally satisfied by the approach of A Link Between Worlds either though I like that Aonuma is experimenting with it!

Nonlinear isn't necessarily open world and open world isn't neccessarily nonlinear.

This game gonna be as bad as the others. Aonuma doesn't know how to make a good game.

it is open world to a certain degree, maybe back in gamecube days it was open world. But today standards for open world games is different!

@R-Moss not liking a series doesnt make it bad

Very excited for this game, thinking it will come out earliest of mid-September, but likely around late-November as Star Fox will be out first. But who knows maybe Star Fox will be a surprise launch at E3 with Zelda this summer.

I've really been enjoying Hyrule Warriors and beat it over the weekend. It's one of those games I plan to keep playing to level up all of my characters. Would love to hear of a sequel down the road somewhere.

@R-Moss That's your opinion, I happen to find each of his Zelda titles unique and very good. I would be curious to hear what you think a good game is.

@Souldin That's one of the difficulties I had with Skyrim. You get to a point where you've explored a lot if not all of the map, yet you wonder if you've talked to everyone or done everything necessary to complete the necessary and a lot of optional quests. I beat Skyrim a few years back and though I really enjoyed the game, there was almost too much to do. Recently playing through Far Cry 4 I felt the same way. Although I am very excited to see what a Zelda title in a huge open world will be like. Hopefully being able to eat apples off of the trees won't become a necessity to refill health or hunger or ridiculous like popping malaria pills in Far Cry 2. Still I don't feel that I'll be terribly disappointed with whatever decisions are made in this game. I think that the years of development and attention to detail are what really add to a game like this.

@Sir_Deadly I love Zelda, but the true Zeldas, not the Aonuma's Zeldas.

@Nico07 Zelda isn't about puzzles. Aonuma ruined the series. The numbers show this.

Interesting point about "open-world". I think of it as free to roam most of the outdoor map from the start. There may be locked areas, or areas you will get your @$$ handed to you if you go there, but you can go there if you want. Open world could have a very linear main storyline but it needs to have a lot of side tasks if you deviate. Recent examples are Lego City Undercover, Assassins Creed Black Flag. Then there's the GTA series, obviously. Some of the Zelda games qualify, like the original, or wind waker. Others like Majoras Mask or Skyward sword there is a very specific unlocking and progression through areas, so I wouldn't call them open world. Then you have games like Metroid Prime, which cleverly replace loading screens with doors that remain locked until the next area loads... Still, it never felt "open world" due to the doors separating areas.