Support NeoGAF

[Benzychenz]

90 minutes is too much.

I felt like I was spoiled on too much when playing Skyward Sword, so I'm just going to straight up not watch the Zelda stuff this E3.

If it's all Nintendo's bringing then that means no Nintendo this E3

 

[Instro]

Yeah, no, think of what Zelda is bwfore comparing it with the Witcher 3. There is one thing what is completly different and that is the usw of special items to get to a point you couldn't resch before. If in Wir there is a cliff you can not climb or get down or a mountain...you never can in the game because you can't interact with the world like you do in Zelda games and there is the problem for the next Zelda. I think it will never look natural because you have to design it in a way, everybody sees how he will get over that cliff with a special item and don't run around for hours absolutly clueless.

I'm really confused what you and the other guy are even trying to argue. The original post was asking for the overworld to not be a barren wasteland, like every 3D zelda, and be dense in geometry/foliage/etc. How does that suddenly stop them from integrating item usage into the overworld(something they have hardly ever done anyway). It makes no sense at all. Somehow puzzles and interactive environments require the game to be ugly or something.

 

[Daante]

They know some people will take 90 minutes to decide whether to play as a boy or a girl.

I laughed so hard

 

[Kissenkopf]

I'm really confused what you and the other guy are even trying to argue. The original post was asking for the overworld to not be a barren wasteland, like every 3D zelda, and be dense in geometry/foliage/etc. How does that suddenly stop them from integrating item usage into the overworld(something they have hardly ever done anyway). It makes no sense at all. Somehow puzzles and interactive environments require the game to be ugly or something.

Skyward Sword had an interactive world and it really looked like one. When you have to make a world full of riddles you have to make sure people don't just run around and get to the spot without using the item u wanna have them using. There is no open world game where yoz can REALLY interact with the environment. You can't get an overworld like the Witcher 3 or Xenoblade when you try to make it full of riddles where the player is forced to use items to get to an special place. Look at ALBW, an big world where you can get everywhere from the start....IF you have the right item.

Edit: But maybe the Zelda team found a way to destroy these restrictions we had in Open World games for nearly a decade now and made something really special. If there is one developer who i trust to make that happen it is Nintendo.

 

[Shiggy]

Skyward Sword had an interactive world and it really looked like one. When you have to make a world full of riddles you have to make sure people don't just run around and get to the spot without using the item u wanna have them using. There is no open world game where yoz can REALLY interact with the environment. You can't get an overworld like the Witcher 3 or Xenoblade when you try to make it full of riddles where the player is forced to use items to get to an special place. Look at ALBW, an big world where you can get everywhere from the start....IF you have the right item.

Edit: But maybe the Zelda team found a way to destroy these restrictions we had in Open World games for nearly a decade now and made something really special. If there is one developer who i trust to make that happen it is Nintendo.

And if there's one team I have the least faith in to make it happen, it's the Zelda team. The world in Skyward Sword certainly was not interactive. Thankfully they cut down on a lot of bloat by making a very simple world, yet even this world had next to nothing to interact with.

I'd love to see another team at Nintendo take on Zelda, with the Zelda team perhaps helping (or creating Miitomo 2).

 

[PandaAttack]

Will those attending the E3 live event be able to play these demos?

 

[ReyVGM]

Will those attending the E3 live event be able to play these demos?

Yes.

Oh wait, the public one? Nintendo hasn't said. I think the E3 people announced / decided on that public E3 pretty late in the game. I don't know if Nintendo will show it in an uncontrolled environment.

 

[takriel]

You know what, maybe I'll just watch the trailer.

 

[Kissenkopf]

And if there's one team I have the least faith in to make it happen, it's the Zelda team. The world in Skyward Sword certainly was not interactive. Thankfully they cut down on a lot of bloat by making a very simple world, yet even this world had next to nothing to interact with.

I'd love to see another team at Nintendo take on Zelda, with the Zelda team perhaps helping (or creating Miitomo 2).

We all know that you hate Skyward Sword but to deny it has an interactive world is just plain wrong. Interactive doesn't just mean NPCs who run around or if the leaves react if you touch them. In Zelda games it means how you use your items in that world to reach new place you didn't get earlier. To interact with the world to change things in it. And besides its many flaws I thought SS made a good job of an world which feeled like an complex dungeon itself. A thing a lot of people asked before SS...look at OoT, MM, WW or TP instead...no puzzles inside the overworld which could change a lot. Maybe MM was the closest before SS came out in that regard.

And the Zelda team has an fantastic track record and should keep deliver us this great series.

 

[Cid Highwind]

I wasn't a big fan of Skyward Sword. Zelda should always be open world, IMO. It was a solid game, just not what I hoped for the series.

On the contrary, Zelda U/NX is seemingly doing everything I had hoped it would do. Big open world, possible loose plot allowing the dungeons to be done in different orders. I'm just hoping that the world still manages to be interactive and very full of hidden secrets and side quests. Maybe some totally optional dungeons that could get you some cool gear would be nice too.

 

[YN12]

And if there's one team I have the least faith in to make it happen, it's the Zelda team. The world in Skyward Sword certainly was not interactive. Thankfully they cut down on a lot of bloat by making a very simple world, yet even this world had next to nothing to interact with.

I'd love to see another team at Nintendo take on Zelda, with the Zelda team perhaps helping (or creating Miitomo 2).

The world In Skyward Sword was a puzzle to navigate, so it was interactive in that sense. You had to interact with the architecture of the world in order to navigate it.

 

[Nibel]

90 minutes is too much.

I felt like I was spoiled on too much when playing Skyward Sword, so I'm just going to straight up not watch the Zelda stuff this E3.

If it's all Nintendo's bringing then that means no Nintendo this E3

I thought 90 minutes is too much at first as well, but I remembered that I always need like 40-60 hours for Zelda playthroughs, so eh

 

[PandaAttack]

Yes.

Oh wait, the public one? Nintendo hasn't said. I think the E3 people announced / decided on that public E3 pretty late in the game. I don't know if Nintendo will show it in an uncontrolled environment.

Yeah, the public one. Aww, probably just the press is gonna be able to play it.

 

[TheJoRu]

Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but I read the Yooka-Laylee feature in Edge Magazine where Gavin Price of Playtonic mentions, talking about keeping an element of surprise and not revealing too much, that the most fun he'd had with a modern game was with Skyward Sword because after the initial reveal he chose not to read or see anything about it until he played. I know he's right, and I know my enjoyment of the game would likely benefit from such a thing, but man...I want to see this Zelda game and it's so far away. I don't know what to do.

I sure hope they start off with a trailer; maybe I'd watch that and then go on my media blackout. Just to have something more than 5 seconds of nothing yet another year.

 

[Diffense]

Aonuma said Zelda Wii U will be Open World "with a twist".
Specifically:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/10/23/aonuma-teases-surprise-twist-for-zelda-wii-us-open-world

We actually had some feedback from Skyward Sword, where people were saying, 'This is not exactly the Zelda game I was looking for, I was looking for a bigger open world.'" Aonuma told IGN. “Unfortunately, I can’t go into details but I’m hoping to put a surprise, or kind of a twist, on my view of an open world game. I hope that you’ll look forward to it

We shouldn't expect it to be your typical open world game with a Zelda skin. Nintendo will definitely put their own spin on the formula.

 

[AntMurda]

Read that both Aonuma (producer) and Fujibayashi (director) will be at Treehouse live. Can anyone confirm?

 

[Red Hood]

.... but there is still a complete lack of environmental interactivity which is what makes Zelda stand out from other games. EAD is about clever gameplay design, and those pictures of The Witcher 3 are vomit inducing bad. I have a difficult time calling that "level design" because there is none, it's just empty space. Like, when I look at them there are literally no ideas circulating in my head, my reaction is completely flat and non existant. Show me an outdoors part of Skyward or ALBW and my mind will immediately begin to think about all the gameplay possibilities and potential secrets. I get nothing out of a game like The Witcher, no enjoyment or stimulation what so ever. There's nothing for your brain to process besides superficial presentation elements and I don't care about those things.

"Vomit inducing bad"? Are you delusional, it's a fucking forest. It's there to make the world believable and atmosphere, who the fuck said they were supposed to highlight level design? How does one even make that link, it boggles the mind. Or do you have your fingers crossed that every tree in Zelda U has a puzzle to them, maybe even a little side quest? Speaking of which, what were the puzzle elements from OOT's and TP's Hyrule Field, MM's Termina Field, WW's Great See. They were there to connect villages and dungeons, to make the whole feel like a believable world, not to be part of a puzzle of some sorts.

 

[Skittzo0413]

"Vomit inducing bad"? Are you delusional, it's a fucking forest. It's there to make the world believable and atmosphere, who the fuck said they were supposed to highlight level design? How does one even make that link, it boggles the mind. Or do you have your fingers crossed that every tree in Zelda U has a puzzle to them, maybe even a little side quest? Speaking of which, what were the puzzle elements from OOT's and TP's Hyrule Field, MM's Termina Field, WW's Great See. They were there to connect villages and dungeons, to make the whole feel like a believable world, not to be part of a puzzle of some sorts.

I agree that "vomit inducing bad" was probably a poor phrase to use when describing the Witcher 3, but I think I get his overall point, which is that we should not be asking for a world that looks like the Witcher for a new Zelda game because the Witcher isn't designed with interactive levels or areas in mind.

The Witcher is first and foremost a story based RPG, so you'd expect to find lots of loot, NPCs and enemies in the overworld, while Zelda is first and foremost a puzzle-based action adventure game, where you expect to find environmental blockages and obstacles which you need to overcome, often with the use of specialized items. The comparison to their worlds doesn't really work, unless this is a drastically different Zelda game.

 

[Hibiki Kurosawa]

Daaamn this game is going to be sock-blow-offedly good, isn't it? It's goibg to have the same effect on people as that ultimate perfune did in Perfume, isn't it? Get ready people!

 

[Otnopolit]

Daaamn this game is going to be sock-blow-offedly good, isn't it? It's goibg to have the same effect on people as that ultimate perfune did in Perfume, isn't it? Get ready people!

It could be. But it also could be Nintendo being late to the open world game craze of the late 2000's. I'm hoping it's how you envision it being though, because Zelda deserves it and Nintendo needs to have this go well if it's going to be the only damn thing they show us this year at E3.

 

[wild wild rice]

I thought 90 minutes is too much at first as well, but I remembered that I always need like 40-60 hours for Zelda playthroughs, so eh

Basically this.

 

[Ansatz]

"Vomit inducing bad"? Are you delusional, it's a fucking forest. It's there to make the world believable and atmosphere, who the fuck said they were supposed to highlight level design? How does one even make that link, it boggles the mind. Or do you have your fingers crossed that every tree in Zelda U has a puzzle to them, maybe even a little side quest? Speaking of which, what were the puzzle elements from OOT's and TP's Hyrule Field, MM's Termina Field, WW's Great See. They were there to connect villages and dungeons, to make the whole feel like a believable world, not to be part of a puzzle of some sorts.

That's not what EAD does though, they make decidedly gamey gameplay fields that resemble real life playgrounds. This is the ideal form of level design in a video game:

These screenshots scream fun, they're inviting and captures the feeling you had as a kid as you are about to enter an elaborate playground:

And Super Mario Galaxy's level design capture the fun of obstacle courses:

This is what Nintendo is about, the pure joy of play

 

[Enduin]

I thought 90 minutes is too much at first as well, but I remembered that I always need like 40-60 hours for Zelda playthroughs, so eh

That's a bit longer than average I think, but not tremendously so, but honestly given the size of this title I wouldn't be surprised if Zelda U was the first in the series that legit required over 40 hours to beat for most everyone. Every console entry in the series since OoT has been getting longer and longer. OoT, MM and WW all straddled 30 hours for average play time, when the previous 2D entries were like 10-15, then with TP and SS both were close to 40 for most people. Given this is the first entry that's open world and how long it's been in development it could turn out to be a truly massive game. I hope Nintendo is able to pace it out well.

Then again depending on how they structure the game and dungeon progression the game may actually be completeable in a shorter time.

 

[KingBroly]

I wonder how controlled these demos will be. Like what twists and mechanics are going to be left out for them to surprise people with when it releases?

I know Zelda games aren't the deepest or hardest of games, but I feel like for how much they've talked up the open world aspect and their 'big twist' to it, I wonder how they're going to hide it?

 

[Instro]

Skyward Sword had an interactive world and it really looked like one. When you have to make a world full of riddles you have to make sure people don't just run around and get to the spot without using the item u wanna have them using. There is no open world game where yoz can REALLY interact with the environment. You can't get an overworld like the Witcher 3 or Xenoblade when you try to make it full of riddles where the player is forced to use items to get to an special place. Look at ALBW, an big world where you can get everywhere from the start....IF you have the right item.

Edit: But maybe the Zelda team found a way to destroy these restrictions we had in Open World games for nearly a decade now and made something really special. If there is one developer who i trust to make that happen it is Nintendo.

Um the overworld in Skyward Sword is the sky, the ground areas are practically part of the dungeon. As you recall the sky is largely vapid and empty, both in design and visually so the point here is that the "overworld" areas should be very dense visually, enjoyable to wander in and explore. Then there would be areas on the map that are more complex in design and item interactivity similar to the ground areas in Skyward Sword, possibly leading into a new dungeon.

 

[Ansatz]

Um the overworld in Skyward Sword is the sky, the ground areas are practically part of the dungeon. As you recall the sky is largely vapid and empty, both in design and visually so the point here is that the "overworld" areas should be very dense visually, enjoyable to wander in and explore. Then there would be areas on the map that are more complex in design and item interactivity similar to the ground areas in Skyward Sword, possibly leading into a new dungeon.

Yes, obviously people are refering to outdoor areas of Skyward Sword, not the sky overworld.

However, Skyloft is a very convenient place because they minizime travel time by placing the three main beams that take you to areas below very close to the hub city, so there's very little downtime as you travel from A to B.

That's not the case with Zelda U's overworld, presumably you will be forced to traverse vast fields of grass just to get to an interesting area, in the same way you had to sail in Wind Waker for ages before you got to an island which contains all the meaningful gameplay. It's like Wind Waker but 10 times worse, and I hated WW. At least WW HD mitigates travel time slightly with the introduction of the swift sail which doubles your speed.

 

[Diffense]

Um the overworld in Skyward Sword is the sky, the ground areas are practically part of the dungeon. As you recall the sky is largely vapid and empty, both in design and visually so the point here is that the "overworld" areas should be very dense visually, enjoyable to wander in and explore. Then there would be areas on the map that are more complex in design and item interactivity similar to the ground areas in Skyward Sword, possibly leading into a new dungeon.

This is pretty much what I expect. The overworld areas will vary in density of content but the "wilds", so to speak, will also have things to do. More so than tWW's Great Sea.

 

[Enduin]

Yes, obviously people are refering to outdoor areas of Skyward Sword, not the sky overworld.

However, Skyloft is a very convenient place because they minizime travel time by placing the three main beams that take you to areas below very close to the hub city, so there's very little downtime as you travel from A to B.

That's not the case with Zelda U's overworld, presumably you will be forced to traverse vast fields of grass just to get to an interesting area, in the same way you had to sail in Wind Waker for ages before you got to an island which contains all the meaningful gameplay.

No reason there can't be fast travel of some kind like MM and the Owl Statues or WW itself, though hopefully not kept locked up till late game like it was there.

 

[Diffense]

I liked Skyward Sword but IMO it was a little too obvious that it was a game world. Having vast areas that "just are" is a great way to create the impression that the world doesn't just exist for Link to have an adventure. I'll have zero issues with having to gallop across the world map to get to my next destination in Zelda U.

 

[Occam]

I think I'm going to skip Nintendo's conference, instead do something worthwhile during this hour and a half I'd never get back and just read a 5-sentence summary afterwards.

 

[zelhawks37]

90 minutes? Awesome! Still hoping we can play as Zelda at some point.

 

[Enduin]

I liked Skyward Sword but IMO it was a little too obvious that it was a game world. Having vast areas that "just are" is a great way to create the impression that the world doesn't just exist for Link to have an adventure. I'll have zero issues with having to gallop across the world map to get to my next destination in Zelda U.

This was my issue with it as well. I've been wanting Nintendo to bridge the gap between overworld and dungeon for a long time, give us more to do, explore and interact with outside of the dungeons themselves, and while I appreciate what they tried to do in SS I think it was a failed experiment. The locations felt too small and enclosed in most instances and far too theme parky across the board, rather than being organic and realistic feeling. It didn't feel like a world, but more of a videogame stage. The separation between Skyloft and the world below didn't help with that either.

They need to strike a really fine balance between a believable/natural looking and atmospheric overworld, while also not being too sterile and vacant of content or interaction in Zelda U.

 

[ReyVGM]

90 minutes? Awesome! Still hoping we can play as Zelda at some point.

You play/control Zelda in Spirit Tracks.

 

[Bloodporne]

That's not the case with Zelda U's overworld, presumably you will be forced to traverse vast fields of grass just to get to an interesting area, in the same way you had to sail in Wind Waker for ages before you got to an island which contains all the meaningful gameplay. It's like Wind Waker but 10 times worse, and I hated WW. At least WW HD mitigates travel time slightly with the introduction of the swift sail which doubles your speed.

That's my worry for this one. The obnoxiously boring and pointless sailing in WW wore me down to the point I never finished the game on GC originally and I really hope this new one isn't sailing x10 with a horse. I just personally don't understand why anyone would think these barren overworlds are fun. Unless there is a similar multiplier of dungeon quantity at work equal to the growth of the overall map size, I can't think of how this vastness can be made fun to play particularly.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

That's not what EAD does though, they make decidedly gamey gameplay fields that resemble real life playgrounds. This is the ideal form of level design in a video game:





These screenshots scream fun, they're inviting and captures the feeling you had as a kid as you are about to enter an elaborate playground:



And Super Mario Galaxy's level design capture the fun of obstacle courses:



This is what Nintendo is about, the pure joy of play

Yeah witcher 3 would definitely be better if its world was a small children playground looking thing. That would be ideal

 

[Neoleo2143]

The issue with wind walker is that exploration is basically flat. The navigation is mostly a straight line which isn't particularly engaging and thus has you wait around most of the time unless you do a number of side stuff along the way.

In contrast Zelda U has many different elevations and this vertical element inherently makes navigation more interesting than Wind Waker.

 

[Astral Dog]

Well its their only game there ;P

 

[LegendofLex]

That's not what EAD does though, they make decidedly gamey gameplay fields that resemble real life playgrounds.

The kinds of real-world experiences Zelda is trying to emulate are not real-life playgrounds.

With Zelda, Miyamoto wanted to take the idea of a game "world" even further. In his own words, the intent of the original Zelda game (and every Zelda title since) was to give players a "miniature garden that they can put inside their drawer." His inspiration came from the fields, woods, and caves outside Kyoto that he had explored as a boy, and he has always tried to impart this sense of exploration and limitless wonder to players through his Zelda titles.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060701...espot.com/gamespot/features/video/hist_zelda/

The definition of the kind of world that exists in Zelda games is the kinds of real-world wildernesses we can explore by going outside the built environments in which we live.

The "level design" is about how much you can discover by pushing the boundaries of that world. There's a waterfall? Maybe there's something behind it. That wall has a crack in it? Maybe you can break it down. There's a big forest? I wonder what you'll find it you push through to its deepest corners. There's a mountain? I wonder if there's a way to climb it.

It's about the obstacles you encounter along the way - which don't have to just be puzzles; they can also be monsters or simply static features in the environment - and how you overcome them to press on in your journey.

Yes, there are dungeons, but they are simply a genre convention that Zelda has adopted. They are not what makes Zelda stand out from the crowd. What makes Zelda stand out from the crowd is that Nintendo is really good at making the user experience fun, chiefly through awesome controls that allow for many possibilities that other games don't offer.

 

[Astral Dog]

The kinds of real-world experiences Zelda is trying to emulate are not real-life playgrounds.



The definition of the kind of world that exists in Zelda games is the kinds of real-world wildernesses we can explore by going outside the built environments in which we live.

The "level design" is about how much you can discover by pushing the boundaries of that world. There's a waterfall? Maybe there's something behind it. That wall has a crack in it? Maybe you can break it down. There's a big forest? I wonder what you'll find it you push through to its deepest corners.

It's about the obstacles you encounter along the way - which don't have to just be puzzles; they can also be monsters or simply static features in the environment - and how you overcome them to press on in your journey.

Yes, there are dungeons, but they are simply a genre convention that Zelda has adopted. They are not what makes Zelda stand out from the crowd. What makes Zelda stand out from the crowd is that Nintendo is really good at making the user experience fun, chiefly through awesome controls that allow for many possibilities that other games don't offer.

The dungeons are a Zelda staple, a nice mix of dungeons/puzzles and overworld with interesting sidequests would be the best combination for this one.

What they desesperately need to change is the combat imo.

 

[Skittzo0413]

That's not the case with Zelda U's overworld, presumably you will be forced to traverse vast fields of grass just to get to an interesting area, in the same way you had to sail in Wind Waker for ages before you got to an island which contains all the meaningful gameplay. It's like Wind Waker but 10 times worse, and I hated WW. At least WW HD mitigates travel time slightly with the introduction of the swift sail which doubles your speed.

I'm fairly hopeful that Aonuma's comment about there being a "twist" on the open world alleviates those problems. I'm picturing something like dynamic changes in the landscape itself which present a challenge in traversal, or potentially moving through the overworld also moves you through different time periods in that overworld where you see new challenges/enemies/obstacles when you pass into a different time period.

I think something like this would make the world feel more alive and engaging even during something as simple as going from point A to point B, which would be really nice twist on open world design.

 

[Ansatz]

Yeah witcher 3 would definitely be better if its world was a small children playground looking thing. That would be ideal

I'm refering to the underlying mechanical structure, you can dress it up with whatever mature artstyle you want as long as the geometry has lots of gamey things going for it.

Zora's River is proper video game level design:

There's platforming, narrow paths/bridges you need to navigate with caution otherwise you're thrown into the river which flows downstream and takes you back (sort of a risk reward proposition; move faster and you increase the risk of falling), puzzle solving as you figure out how to reach the piece of heart (use the cucco), secrets (in the first pic iirc there are rupees hidden in that narrow water stream on the right side); actual gameplay in other words.

Zelda U's overworld is like this, empty space void of gameplay substance:

All you can do here is roll into trees that occasionally contain a skulltula, that in itself is terrible design because to 100% the game it practically demans you roll into every tree which is tedious and repetitive.

The point I'm making about the playground comment is that every part of the terrain is there because it serves a gameplay purpose, EAD has never been about making immersive and atmospheric worlds. Like, the gap between the pillars around the piece of heart is tuned for interesting platforming, not to make the world beautiful and feel realistic.

 

[OneAndDone]

Sadly, it doesn't matter what's in the demo, there will be threats and tweets and articles rating because:

If the demo looks as good as the render: Why the demo is not in the eShop, Nintendo?
If the demos dons't look as good: We knew it! Is garbage! Worst Zelda ever!
If the impression are good: Why is this coming out in the WiiU? You and your stupid decisions!
If the impressions are not that good: Another IP to the garbage! Go third party already!
If none of the demos is the NX: This game would be soooo much better but Nintendo is stupid, not buying until the NX is $100 AND come with the game.
If one of the demos is in the NX and the NX version is "enhanced": The WiiU version is a waste of time and is dragging down the NX version! Worst company ever!
If one of the demos is in the NX and both versions are practically the same: The NX is so weak it can't even run the U version of Zelda! Nintendo doooooomed!

And I bet there will be some screenshot of some low-poly element, like a bug or a bird, and then a part of the community will flip their minds because "it takes away the realism"...

Anyway, really excited about this, I will definitively watch all of it. I have to play a Zelda game I dislike (CD-i not counting since I don't know where I could find the games or the console , other than emulation).

 

[Enduin]

I'm refering to the underlying mechanical structure, you can dress it up with whatever mature artstyle you want as long as the geometry has lots of gamey things going for it.

Zora's River is proper video game level design:







There's platforming, narrow paths/bridges you need to navigate with caution otherwise you're thrown into the river which flows downstream and takes you back (sort of a risk reward proposition; move faster and you increase the risk of falling), puzzle solving as you figure out how to reach the piece of heart (use the cucco), secrets (in the first pic iirc there are rupees hidden in that narrow water stream on the right side); actual gameplay in other words.

Zelda U's overworld is like this, empty space void of gameplay substance:



All you can do here is roll into trees that occasionally contain a skulltula, that in itself is terrible design because to 100% the game it practically demans you roll into every tree which is tedious and repetitive.

The point I'm making about the playground comment is that every part of the terrain is there because it serves a gameplay purpose, EAD has never been about making immersive and atmospheric worlds. Like, the gap between the pillars around the piece of heart is tuned for interesting platforming, not to make the world beautiful and feel realistic.

It's beyond premature to say what Zelda U and its world design is and is not at this point. We've so little of this game it's crazy to say everything in this massive map is just open and empty. There is nothing stopping the game from having large wide open spaces, as well as more confined and crafted ones that require deliberate movements and thought. A major goal of OoT and most console Zeldas since then has been to present a beautiful and believable world, while also providing interesting gameplay experiences. Both kinds of environments serve that purpose but do so in different ways. One provides a sense of scale and scope, making the world feel realistic, while the other makes the world more engaging and interesting to traverse.

Having only one or the other limits the game and detracts from that overall experience because they both offer up different things the other cannot. You either have a stark sterile environment or one that feels too much like a themepark and not a real place relatively speaking. Which is basically TP/WW and SS respectively. The former relied too much on open spaces, WW couldn't help it so much given the setting most islands though provided ample challenge, while the latter situation in SS was too much of a themepark and isolated leaving a world that felt artificial.

You need both large open spaces to create that sense of atmosphere, scope and believability to the world, but you also need more intricate and crafted areas that challenge the player and have them actively interact with the environment in a more gameplay oriented fashion. The world map and vids we've seen of Zelda U provides ample opportunity for Zora's River type areas that make the player really work at traversing the terrain along with the wide open spaces we've already seen.

 

[KingSnake]

The footage only lasts a few seconds but you can see in the gif below so much space around you that would take well over 10 minutes to explore by foot and there is literally nothing going on but hills, rocks, trees and grass. Like, nothing. It's just empty space.

Luckily you're not on foot. That's why you have a horse. That's why probably there will be some fast travel mechanism. In every Zelda (hell, in almost every game) there are places with nothing to do around you at some point. That sequence was not meant to show any gameplay, just to show the beauty of the game.

Anyhow, feel free to believe the worst, I won't intervene in your "garbage tear" assumptions any more.

 

[LegendofLex]

Zelda U's overworld is like this, empty space void of gameplay substance:

Using Ocarina of Time as an example of bad level design (big spaces devoid of "gameplay" design) and good level design (narrow spaces with platforming challenges) in the same post is kind of weird, since if anything this shows that these two design paradigms can both exist in the same game. (And with the critical and commercial acclaim Ocarina of Time received, that Zelda games require both paradigms to exist to be as successful as they should be.)

Plus, it's weird to argue that Ocarina of Time's Hyrule Field is bad game design to begin with, since there's no doubt that it was a huge part of the appeal of that game. Just like wide open spaces were a huge part of the appeal for games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy, and Xenoblade Chronicles, or even a puzzle-focused game like The Witness, which is pretty much the last example I think you could give of a game that's underdesigned.

 

[Nightbird]

Not every nook and cranny needs to be filled with something to do.

Having some areas of nothingness adds to making a game feel alive.

 

[Enduin]

One of my biggest hopes with the wide opens spaces is that they do utilize it in other ways like having interest mobs and minibosses like King Bulblin from TP. Having combat encounters and other interesting events occur in the overworld would be perfect utilization of those larger open areas. And this is almost guaranteed to some degree or another given how they highlighted the fact that Epona auto navigates freeing up the player to pay attention to other things in the world.

I want the game to react to my progress. Complete some dungeon or major quest and then ohh look there are enemies throughout Hyrule field sent on reprisal raids or something. I freed a town in the NW and now in SW an enemy invasion force is coming across the plains. Shit like that which makes the world feel more alive and utilizes the open spaces in unique ways.

 

[Diffense]

Using Ocarina of Time as an example of bad level design (big spaces devoid of "gameplay" design) and good level design (narrow spaces with platforming challenges) in the same post is kind of weird, since if anything this shows that these two design paradigms can both exist in the same game. (And with the critical and commercial acclaim Ocarina of Time received, that Zelda games require both paradigms to exist to be as successful as they should be.)

Plus, it's weird to argue that Ocarina of Time's Hyrule Field is bad game design to begin with, since there's no doubt that it was a huge part of the appeal of that game.

I was just about to say that. We've seen very little of Zelda U so it's premature to assume that the whole game is a flat field.

Anyway, based on what we've seen of the map, Zelda U's Hyrule seems to be bowl-shaped with the lowest, flattest terrain in the middle (between the two rivers) and mountains around that.

http://www.zeldadungeon.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ZeldaWiiUEnhancedMap.jpg

 

[LegendofLex]

One of my biggest hopes with the wide opens spaces is that they do utilize it in other ways like having interest mobs and minibosses like King Bulblin from TP. Having combat encounters and other interesting events occur in the overworld would be perfect utilization of those larger open areas. And this is almost guaranteed to some degree or another given how they highlighted the fact that Epona auto navigates freeing up the player to pay attention to other things in the world.

I want the game to react to my progress. Complete some dungeon or major quest and then ohh look there are enemies throughout Hyrule field sent on reprisal raids or something. I freed a town in the NW and now in SW an enemy invasion force is coming across the plains. Shit like that which makes the world feel more alive and utilizes the open spaces in unique ways.

Yeah, I agree that the best way to utilize open spaces is to make them dangerous. (But only sometimes dangerous, not always. Creates needed contrast.)

Another good way to utilize them: pepper them with environmental detail. The farmers and goats in the Zelda U debut footage are a great example of this, as are the wild horses in The Game Awards footage. This kind of shit flat-out doesn't make any sense in a world that's designed purely for "gameplay" purposes.

 

[zelhawks37]

You play/control Zelda in Spirit Tracks.

True, but thats only one game. She needs to play more of a role in the games like ST did imo.