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

[Bladexdsl]

and for many areas it's simply useless to go there because even the small enemies will kill you in one hit.

yes but you can still go there anytime even the fly areas their not locked or blocked anytime their always open.

 

[mercuryshadow09]

I'm gonna have to agree with Foxi here, if you read the open world description at the Wiki link it states "Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity." which A Link to the Past was!

 

[Bladexdsl]

lttp is not open world you have to get an item in a dungeon before you can access the next area and it can't be avoided this is not open world!

 

[mercuryshadow09]

lttp is not open world you have to get an item in a dungeon before you can access the next area and it can't be avoided this is not open world!

As in a locked area per the Wiki description?

 

[Bladexdsl]

cos wiki says it than it must be true

ok you want examples xenoblade (wii) is open world

 

[mercuryshadow09]

Wow, obtuse is just obtuse!

 

[Arras]

cos wiki says it than it must be true

ok you want examples xenoblade (wii) is open world

Yes, it is. But it's not like you can go to any part of the game right from the start, just like in these other games.

 

[Bladexdsl]

but you can actually go there their not locked /blocked you just need to find a way to get there. that's not classified as a locked area. screw the wiki

 

[Arras]

but you can actually go there their not locked /blocked you just need to find a way to get there. that's not classified as a locked area. screw the wiki

I'm pretty sure at some point there's a gate you need to open through a story quest.

 

[Ericthegreat]

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.

Super Mario 64 I would consider open world.

 

[Bladexdsl]

alltp is linear you have to go to the old guy ruins (1st dungeon) and complete it to get the boots so you can get the book to get into the desert so you can get the glove to get into the tower. you cannot go to say the tower 1st than desert or anywhere you want 1st. that would make it open world IF it was like that. than when you get to the dark world you can do the dungeons out of order BUT you 1st need to get the hammer from the monkey ruins. and finally you need to get the ultra glove from blinds dungeon and only than can you do the dungeons out of order. hardly what i call open world it is quite linear up to that point. and no don't even mention using game genie codes OR the glitches on the gba version cos they don't count

 

[zeello]

Super Mario 64 I would consider open world.

it is not

 

[Terenigma]

it is not

Why not? Open world is so subjective. I view "open world" as a game that lets you tackle your goal in different ways, Mario 64 does that. You only have 2 area's that are locked completely off to you from the start, how you tackle those 3 seperate area's is completely up to you. The levels are not exsactly small either and have 7 stars per map, most of which are freely obtainable no matter which star you attempt you "choose" to get at the start. How is that not open world?

I think Zelda games are mistakenly called open world, there are not many zelda games that let you tackle things in your own way and despite the fact you can walk around and talk to people, despite the huge maps. The game very rarely lets you do anything else untill you get a certain item or progress to a certain point. All you are really doing is delaying the linear process of the game.

[Edit] I know this reply will get arguements about the doors in mario making it linear but i still felt mario 64 had more freedom than the newer zelda games.

 

[Yil]

So it is just basically something bigger and better than a link between world which is super easy with too few collectables?

I was just expecting many missions, reacting with NPCs, numerous mini games and secret dungeons with puzzles and battle which might reward with powerful weapon or tool(like energy arrow, bomb-spider which climb walls, fire outfits giving lava immunity, stronger shield, variety and sword and blade, extra wand, boomerang, the four sword, transforming mask), blah blah
And some places are unreachable without getting other tool(a secret room can only be reached with hook shot, a underwater room with swimming outfit and iron boots, blah blah) so the gamer might want to have another several visits to get the hidden treasure(rupees, figurine, heart piece)
Sword skills again, endurance, wii remote control, potion making, tool upgrading
And hidden bosses recommending tools

 

[Bladexdsl]

So it is just basically something bigger and better than a link between world which is super easy with too few collectables?

it doesn't say it's going to be that anywhere!

 

[Gahars]

What does "open world" mean?

You see that mountain over there? You can climb it. *Cue thunderous applause*

 

[FAST6191]

What does "open world" mean?

You see that mountain over there? You can climb it. *Cue thunderous applause*

But I searched high and low, never found a game that allowed me to follow every byway.

 

[zeello]

Why not? Open world is so subjective.

yea, I guess it is subjective but we can safely say SM64 is not open world. And after all its one of the first games with 3D environments. The game that made open world a thing is GTA3. It is a city you can explore freely. SM64 still had levels. They are not even very big levels. And on top of that the goals are deceptively linear.

I view "open world" as a game that lets you tackle your goal in different ways, Mario 64 does that.

by that logic pretty much any game is open world. If you had said "tackle you goal using different pathways" then that would have been more specific, and yet plenty of games would qualify which are clearly not open world such as 2d Mario games.

[quotr]you only have 2 area's that are locked completely off to you from the start[/quote]
have we played the same game.

how you tackle those 3 seperate area's is completely up to you.

mega man let's you pick the levels in any order, is it open world? no, not even close

and have 7 stars per map, most of which are freely obtainable no matter which star you attempt you "choose" to get at the start. How is that not open world?

the game is cut up into levels
the levels are cut up into stars
the levels funnel you into specific paths
not all the stars are attainable right off

also the fact alone you have to choose a star makes it not open world even if just in principle

I think Zelda games are mistakenly called open world, there are not many zelda games that let you tackle things in your own way and despite the fact you can walk around and talk to people, despite the huge maps.

They are not open world either. If you are comparing SM64 to Zelda then its no wonder you think you have an argument. Neither are open world. Anyone who told you otherwise has lied to you egregiously.

And its exactly what I was talking about earlier. Everything in Zelda feels curated. Every area has a purpose and the entire game exactly the right size to fit everything essential to completing the game. In no way is that open world.

There is no need to reply to the rest of your post because I'm getting a feeling of "if zelda can then why not mario". Mario gets through the door on the presupposition that Zelda does but never did I say that Zelda is open world nor shall I agree to it. This makes it fair, right? Mario 64 gets to be on equal footing as Zelda like you wanted.

the game very rarely lets you do anything else untill you get a certain item or progress to a certain point.

Mario has the hats and you need a certain amount of stars to open each door

and the bowser levels

[Edit] I know this reply will get arguements about the doors in mario making it linear but i still felt mario 64 had more freedom than the newer zelda games.

Zelda games dont really have much reedom, so its setting the bar a bit low

I will state for the record that I have never played Zelda 1

 

[FAST6191]

I think this situation may call for a Venn diagram, I am not going to be the one to make it though. It might be fun to pick outliers though.

The game that made open world a thing is GTA3. It is a city you can explore freely.

Leaving aside that earlier games in the franchise had a city in which you were free to do things the concept goes back far far further, and not even in some offbeat/obscure "only released in limited quantities for the wonderswan in Thailand" sort of thing.

the game is cut up into levels
the levels are cut up into stars
the levels funnel you into specific paths
not all the stars are attainable right off

The same could probably be said of the GTA series.

 

[zeello]

Leaving aside that earlier games in the franchise had a city in which you were free to do things the concept goes back far far further, and not even in some offbeat/obscure "only released in limited quantities for the wonderswan in Thailand" sort of thing.

I never said GTA3 is the first open world game.

The same could probably be said of the GTA series.

No.