Gaming What does it mean by Zelda wii u is not exactly a "open world"

[Yil]

It said one can do numerous things daily, and that just match open world, and indeed zelda is getting more open with all the heart piece and other collectable, rupee, it just need to be more say natural and more than beneficial to combat.

 

[Walker D]

I think you're having some trouble expressing yourself..
I'm gonna first give some context so others can comment on your thread.. ..You're referencing a comment from Miyamoto, so I'm gonna first quote it here out from ZeldaInformer:

Everyone seems to have a pretty vague concept of what exactly open world means, especially for a Zelda game. While it may be true to an extent, Nintendo has their own ideas of what it means, and Miyamoto seems to feel like Nintendo was reluctant to use the term to begin with (even if it is true).

"In addition, we have already announced that we are now developing the next title for the orthodox “The Legend of Zelda” series for Wii U, and that it will be an “open world,” as announced at E3. I prefer not to use the generally used term “open world” when developing software, but we used this term in order to make it easier for consumers to understand. This term means that there is a large world in which players can do numerous things daily. In the traditional “The Legend of Zelda” series, the player would play one dungeon at a time. For example, if there are eight dungeons, at the fourth dungeon, some players may think, “I’m already halfway through the game,” while other players may think, “I still have half of the game to play.” We are trying to gradually break down such mechanism and develop a game style in which you can enjoy “The Legend of Zelda” freely in a vast world, whenever you find the time to do so.​

At the halfway point to achieving this goal, we released “The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds” for Nintendo 3DS last year. We created the games in the traditional “The Legend of Zelda” series in steps that players could easily understand and follow; the player would obtain a new item in each dungeon, use the item to clear that dungeon and be able to enjoy applying the items in different ways after acquiring about eight items. However, in “The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds,” we broke that down and let the player rent different items from the beginning, so the player could use different combinations of items. In this way, we are gradually changing the structure of “The Legend of Zelda” series, and we are preparing to newly evolve the series for Wii U. In addition to that, we have ideas for Nintendo 3DS which we have not announced yet, so I hope you will look forward to them."​

What he mainly means is that he wants to break the linearity that recent zeldas have (with the pre-defined way to go and dungeons to beat). That so we could discover the world more freely. They where experimenting on that thought with ALBW.

Some other things that you wanted to discuss about it?

 

[zeello]

Nintendo has not done an open world game ever so it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

I think Nintendo's style is to curate every room in a game, and it is much easier to do that if the game world is very small.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Open world generally means you can go anywhere from the start of the game. By saying "vast", I think he is expressing that there will still be some limitations (i.e. you still have to pass some quest road-blocks to enter certain areas), but the "world" will be so large that it can maintain a degree of "linear-ness" without the player being felt like he can't be explore a lot.

Think of a game like Oblivion that's huge. Now imagine you could only explore the south-east quadrant of the map until you beat part of the main quest. That's still at least 20 hours worth of exploration.

 

[Walker D]

I had a comment on another site about what should be reviewed on this new Open World ...don't know now if it would make the game more fun, but it's a thing.

What I think it really needs is to blend Mainquests and sidequests... ..I mean, like the first LoZ, were there where just quests ...you can see them as more or less important to the game progression after you do those, sure ...but they all seemed equal at the first glance ...equal opportunities of discovery. That's what real exploration is all about. That and the little amount of hand-grabbing made the first LoZ feel like a real big quest.

THAT's what they should rethink on the new Open World Zelda ...don't underestimate the ability of the player to find things by himself (back in the NES era, the hand-grabbing was minimal, and we did just fine) ..Just let the gameplay and the world structure lead us to the learning (smart game design can do that without Tutorials ...like the NES Mario Bros. or SNES Megaman X did, for example).
Also, let the gameplay possibilities lead us forward ...don't use plot to force us forward. That's also something that got lost overtime.
Pretty sure that if they look into that, the new game could be pretty fun

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Nintendo has not done an open world game ever so it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

I think Nintendo's style is to curate every room in a game, and it is much easier to do that if the game world is very small.

They sort of done it here and there but nothing really like what an open world game is about.

 

[Bladexdsl]

Nintendo has not done an open world game ever so it will be interesting to see how this pans out.
.

zelda 1 and lbw are both open world

 

[JoostinOnline]

zelda 1 and lbw are both open world

ALBW isn't. You are on a very set path at the start of the game, and you can't explore everything until you've bought and upgraded some key items like the hookshot.

Edit: Come to think of it, neither was the original. You need the raft to reach places.

 

[Foxi4]

Many people mix up the terms Open World, meaning a big world map that allows you to go anywhere, and Sandbox, which is an Open World where you pick and choose what you want to do. For instance, A Link to the Past or the Oracle games are Open World - you are in no way restricted by a division into stages and you can travel back and forth at will - item requirements to get to certain parts of the map don't affect that. If anything, they encourage backtracking to see new things in earlier map sections. GTA on the other hand is a Sandbox - you have a main storyline, but you don't have to follow it - you can do whatever side quests you want or goof around if you don't feel like questing.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Many people mix up the terms Open World, meaning a big world map that allows you to go anywhere, and Sandbox, which is an Open World where you pick and choose what you want to do. For instance, A Link to the Past or the Oracle games are Open World - you are in no way restricted by a division into stages and you can travel back and forth at will - item requirements to get to certain parts of the map don't affect that.

Except, you know, not being able to get to over half the game (Subrosia in Seasons, the sea in Ages, the mountains in ALttP are a few examples) until later in the game. They are neither open world nor a sandbox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay

 

[Bladexdsl]

Many people mix up the terms Open World, meaning a big world map that allows you to go anywhere, and Sandbox, which is an Open World where you pick and choose what you want to do. For instance, A Link to the Past or the Oracle games are Open World -

sorry foxi your logic won't save you this time none of them games are open world your both on a set path from the very beginning and yes it's true in alttp later on you can go to dungeons out of the order but it's still not open world. albw is more open world than all of them games.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Many people mix up the terms Open World, meaning a big world map that allows you to go anywhere, and Sandbox, which is an Open World where you pick and choose what you want to do. For instance, A Link to the Past or the Oracle games are Open World - you are in no way restricted by a division into stages and you can travel back and forth at will - item requirements to get to certain parts of the map don't affect that. If anything, they encourage backtracking to see new things in earlier map sections. GTA on the other hand is a Sandbox - you have a main storyline, but you don't have to follow it - you can do whatever side quests you want or goof around if you don't feel like questing.

GTA has locked sections which if you can somehow access the cops will come by and shoot your ass down because you're not supposed to be there, so, you're forced to play the story mode until that certain section becomes available.

 

[Foxi4]

This is not a matter of linearity or non-linearity - Open World is a term used in level design and does not equal Sandbox or Non-linear.

 

[migles]

Open world generally means you can go anywhere from the start of the game. By saying "vast", I think he is expressing that there will still be some limitations (i.e. you still have to pass some quest road-blocks to enter certain areas), but the "world" will be so large that it can maintain a degree of "linear-ness" without the player being felt like he can't be explore a lot.

Think of a game like Oblivion that's huge. Now imagine you could only explore the south-east quadrant of the map until you beat part of the main quest. That's still at least 20 hours worth of exploration.

the legend of gta: hyrule city stories!

 

[KingVamp]

Zelda WW?

 

[Bladexdsl]

ww is half open world there are lots of areas you can't access until you have completed dungeons though which you have to do in order (except the last 2)

 

[Walker D]

ww is half open world there are lots of areas you can't access

I think that this concept of open world is kinda utopian..

what game is completely Open World then?

..Skyrim ..oh no wait, you need at least be lvl X to get to this part, or you'll die before getting near it..
..Minecraft? ...umm, you need a bunch of stuff before going to the Nether..

..? ..I couldn't list none so.

 

[Bladexdsl]

wow would be classified as open world so would any other MMORPG (like them lame free ones that are pay to be strong)

 

[WiiCube_2013]

This is not a matter of linearity or non-linearity - Open World is a term used in level design and does not equal Sandbox or Non-linear.

By what you posted previously about GTA it should be open world (all around accessible) by default but it isn't and now you say about its linearity, so no, we're always required to play the games up to a certain extent to play it as a whole.

It's hard to list ANY game because they all demand to play some of the story mode.

 

[Arras]

wow would be classified as open world so would any other MMORPG (like them lame free ones that are pay to be strong)

Not really. You can't go to many areas unless you fly there, for which you need to be a certain level or have large amounts of gold. Then there's the race-specific areas, among other things, and for many areas it's simply useless to go there because even the small enemies will kill you in one hit. By your definition pretty much nothing is open world - and if anything would be, it would have pretty much zero sense of progression and probably be a bad game.