The old Zelda games were also open world.
Comment on Is this true?
Ibuthyr@feddit.org 5 days agoBotW is one of the most boring games ever. Zelda games were fun because of the linearity thanks to finding items that let you progress… And FUCK weapon degradation. What a terrible mechanic.
starik@lemmy.today 4 days ago
Ibuthyr@feddit.org 4 days ago
Not really. The 2D ones at least. You literally can’t access areas until you’ve progressed by finding an item, usually by killing a boss in a dungeon. Its a fairly linear design actually.
Edge004@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
There is some non-linearity in the 2D games. In the first game, you can do some of the dungeons out of order. For example, some people like to save dungeon 6 for last because it’s difficult. Some dungeons do require items from previous dungeons, but not every one.
A Link to The Past also has some nonlinearity in the same way. The dungeons in the dark world are numbered, but you can still do some of them out of order for the same reason as the first game.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
Hmmm… I see what you to mean… but it’s in my top 5 games of all time, and none of the other Zelda games are. So I think it just shimmied into a different genre, which I get could be a problem for an existing fanbase that liked the old genre.
Ibuthyr@feddit.org 4 days ago
You’re spot on!
moakley@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Oh look, another Korok Seed. How meaningful and rewarding and not complete bullshit or anything.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
I think this is a difference between us as players. I’m not a competitionist at all, and I don’t even remember what economy the Korok seeds were for. I probably finished the game with a ton of them collected and unspent.
But in my mind they weren’t meant to be collected as a goal on their own. I’d be exploring up a mountain or whatever, just because I wanted to know what was on the other side, and when I got up to the peak I’d look out over the landscape and enjoy it for what it is. And then while I was up there I’d see a weird rock and go “ah, the developers wanted me to be up here looking at this view” and I’d move the rock, get some little fireworks, and then I’d have a buddy to enjoy the scenery with.
And then hours later, maybe months in real time, I’d be climbing around and see a Korok and go “Oh! I must have been up here before! Hey little guy” and then keep going.
So I liked them because it was something put there by the devs to show that they intended this place to be visited; that they put some attention here, and I had come to a place that wasn’t just endless grass or empty procedural trees or something. It was full of stuff, even if it was silly little guys.
Oh, and you can drop rocks on their heads and they go “oof”. That’s a good one.
moakley@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Definitely a difference, because I am a completionist. Especially when it comes to Zelda games.
The problem is that the answer is “nothing”. There’s nothing on the other side. Just more scenery, maybe a shrine or another Korok. The core gameplay loop is still just Zelda, so there’s nothing they can do to populate the world with meaningful things to find.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
Right, I get that. But I wouldn’t consider the scenery nothing! I liked the scerey!
Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 days ago
Yeah, I think that’s why open world games are so divisive. Some people want the game to reward them for doing the things they’re supposed to do, while some people just view playing the game itself as the reward, and just do what they want within it. The prior hates how difficult it is to find and get to the next objective in an open world, while the latter doesn’t need or sometimes even want objectives, preferring to just be in the world.