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

[FAST6191]

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

Doesn't say it was the first, heavily implies it was the thing that popularised the concept though. Earlier GTA titles, Elite, Might and Magic... all somewhat earlier and all incredibly popular in their day.

"the game is cut up into levels"
San Andreas saw me shuffled around the map and going back to earlier places was not exactly much use most of the time.

"the levels are cut up into stars"
Several locations were reused/revisited a lot.

"the levels funnel you into specific paths"
Once you have taken whatever circuitous route you prefer to the start of the trick show then most would hardly call most earlier GTA missions sprawling, free form and dynamic. The Far Cry sequels might be able to get there (though this is not necessarily a good thing) and possibly some of GTA5, not so much for pre 5 GTA.

"not all the stars are attainable right off"
Leaving aside the islands/sections/instant wanted of GTA (possibly also things like the mafia in GTA3 meaning you have to think long and hard about going back to the first location after a certain point in the story) there are parts that you really need flight/skills/weapons and more that the game very specifically downplays to get into.

At this point we are very much into the semantics world (what move you can do in a fighting game depends upon your character, though as you can freely choose a given character does that still count? Maths would argue it changes nothing and is just a branching path on an instance, most gaming types are less mathematically inclined and might argue otherwise), and that only gets worse if you include some minutia that a developer might have included as a bonus or something, even worse if you include glitches.

 

[zeello]

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

Doesn't say it was the first, heavily implies it was the thing that popularised the concept though.

which in reality is what matters

"the game is cut up into levels"
San Andreas saw me shuffled around the map and going back to earlier places was not exactly much use most of the time.

what does that have to do with being cut up in levels or not?

"the levels are cut up into stars"
Several locations were reused/revisited a lot.

which is not a bad thing and has nothing to do with being open world or not. And once again your sentence has nothing to do with the quote.

At this point we are very much into the semantics world

no, we're not. You and other guy are just trying to twist everything since we're in the internet, where truth can be found but is no longer real. Open world means a specific thing that is generally understood, and probably because they are based on GTA3. Personally even if I were to come up with games that straddle the line between being open world or not, or games that are open world in spirit even though they might not achieve the same scope or freedom as the open world games everyone knows, or merely differ in structure, I still wouldn't pick Zelda or Mario because those games are expressly NOT open world.

(what move you can do in a fighting game depends upon your character, though as you can freely choose a given character does that still count?

for the sake of analogy, it doesn't really count. The other guy was trying to use this basis to argue why Mario 64 is open world. The game is separated into levels (i.e. not open world) but since you can pick any level, that makes it open world? Hell no! And if it did, then that would make Mega Man games open world, or any game with level select cheat code activated. *facepalm*

Maths would argue it changes nothing and is just a branching path on an instance, most gaming types are less mathematically inclined and might argue otherwise), and that only gets worse if you include some minutia that a developer might have included as a bonus or something, even worse if you include glitches.

You sound like you're getting into choices but that is different. I can argue that choices are meaningless but that in no way renders open world redundant. Because although there is some overlap (open world = more choices?), the two things deal with separate elements. And actually you and the other guy seem to be trying to argue for open world on precisely that false point: that superficial choices in a game somehow makes something open world.

 

[FAST6191]

which in reality is what matters


what does that have to do with being cut up in levels or not?


which is not a bad thing and has nothing to do with being open world or not. And once again your sentence has nothing to do with the quote.


no, we're not. You and other guy are just trying to twist everything since we're in the internet, where truth can be found but is no longer real. Open world means a specific thing that is generally understood, and probably because they are based on GTA3. Personally even if I were to come up with games that straddle the line between being open world or not, or games that are open world in spirit even though they might not achieve the same scope or freedom as the open world games everyone knows, or merely differ in structure, I still wouldn't pick Zelda or Mario because those games are expressly NOT open world.


for the sake of analogy, it doesn't really count. The other guy was trying to use this basis to argue why Mario 64 is open world. The game is separated into levels (i.e. not open world) but since you can pick any level, that makes it open world? Hell no! And if it did, then that would make Mega Man games open world, or any game with level select cheat code activated. *facepalm*


You sound like you're getting into choices but that is different. I can argue that choices are meaningless but that in no way renders open world redundant. Because although there is some overlap (open world = more choices?), the two things deal with separate elements. And actually you and the other guy seem to be trying to argue for open world on precisely that false point: that superficial choices in a game somehow makes something open world.

On the popularised thing that depends upon what system of law (patent people tend to take a fairly dim view if you take someone's idea) or circles you are running in, entertainment is frequently an oddity here. Suffice it to say though GTA3 was not even close to bringing open world into the popular consciousness, I am not even sure it could be considered as something that took it "to the next level".


That little list was an example of why you thought Mario 64 was not open world, in this same thread you argued GTA3 was open world and I then argued your little list could apply to GTA, you doubted this and I expanded upon the remark. We are now here. It may still be the case that Mario 64 is not open world, or that GTA3 is not or some other combo, your list did nothing to push my hypothetical opinion either way.


"Open world means a specific thing that is generally understood"
Really? Because I find so very little in games is codified or even all that well described if you want to try for a weak grouping. This despite most of its feeder fields (maths/game theory, storytelling, visual media, general board/card games.....) having very well defined examples of most things.

For the purposes of this I am not even sure what a level really is (GTA's islands fitting many criteria by being somewhat locked off), and if so what is not just a fairly elaborate loading sequence (there being many examples of minigames/bonus getting in loading sequences in games).

Also since when is literary/semantic/word choice/word definition type debate a bad thing?

 

[zeello]

On the popularised thing that depends upon what system of law (patent people tend to take a fairly dim view if you take someone's idea) or circles you are running in, entertainment is frequently an oddity here. Suffice it to say though GTA3 was not even close to bringing open world into the popular consciousness, I am not even sure it could be considered as something that took it "to the next level".

I doubt it, but again it is not up for you or me to decide

checking wikipedia just now it says the game sold over 17 million copies. Though I guess that isn't as important to the discussion as the fact that it is the best selling game in its year of release in 2001, and best selling game of 2002 is Vice City, with GTA3 in second place.

Also, checking the list of best selling PS2 games of all time, the list topper is San Andreas (2004) with 17 million sold.
Vice City (2002) in 4th place with 9 million sold
GTA3 (2001) in 5th place with 7.9 million sold

this game did not bring open world to the popular consciousness? not even close?

"Open world means a specific thing that is generally understood"
Really? Because I find so very little in games is codified or even all that well described if you want to try for a weak grouping. This despite most of its feeder fields (maths/game theory, storytelling, visual media, general board/card games.....) having very well defined examples of most things.

in size/scope Mario 64 fails to pass the test. The term open world brought a different idea than simply making the levels bigger. The levels were several magnitudes bigger. It was no longer a level. The entire game took place on it.

Also since when is literary/semantic/word choice/word definition type debate a bad thing?

since every time these arguments occurred?
If we must define open world precisely we can use GTA3 as a base point since thats where popular consciousness of open world originates, and the evolutionary starting point of open world games today

you cant twist words to get SM64 through the door since that is a bastardization of truth. Words like "big" or any word that denotes an area in a game can be pretty much exploited to any capacity you choose. That is by no means being accurate or technical, or "well defined".

 

[FAST6191]

I doubt it, but again it is not up for you or me to decide

checking wikipedia just now it says the game sold over 17 million copies. Though I guess that isn't as important to the discussion as the fact that it is the best selling game in its year of release in 2001, and best selling game of 2002 is Vice City, with GTA3 in second place.

Also, checking the list of best selling PS2 games of all time, the list topper is San Andreas (2004) with 17 million sold.
Vice City (2002) in 4th place with 9 million sold
GTA3 (2001) in 5th place with 7.9 million sold

this game did not bring open world to the popular consciousness? not even close?


in size/scope Mario 64 fails to pass the test. The term open world brought a different idea than simply making the levels bigger. The levels were several magnitudes bigger. It was no longer a level. The entire game took place on it.


since every time these arguments occurred?
If we must define open world precisely we can use GTA3 as a base point since thats where popular consciousness of open world originates, and the evolutionary starting point of open world games today

you cant twist words to get SM64 through the door since that is a bastardization of truth. Words like "big" or any word that denotes an area in a game can be pretty much exploited to any capacity you choose. That is by no means being accurate or technical, or "well defined".

I was not arguing GTA3 was not popular or an important game in many ways, I was arguing it was perhaps not necessarily that big a milestone in the development of open world as a concept which is what this thread is about. I will also argue it is not even close to originator of this branch of the open world game's evolutionary tree.

Size/scope? What is that then? Elite (a immensely popular game from 1984) covered several galaxies, not even Just Cause 2 gets close to that. Various Delta Force games technically feature procedural generation of their levels. Elder Scrolls games tend to feature "inside" as an actual distinct thing at the engine level (including some areas which are probably bigger inside than their outsides would indicate). This then brings things back to semantics as things will tend to want to do, of course that probably also leads to lines in the sand... and well this is why the concept of genre is basically dead on its feet.

I am not even sure entirely where we are heading at this point.

 

[zeello]

I was not arguing GTA3 was not popular or an important game in many ways, I was arguing it was perhaps not necessarily that big a milestone in the development of open world as a concept which is what this thread is about.

I doubt it

Size/scope? What is that then? Elite (a immensely popular game from 1984) covered several galaxies, not even Just Cause 2 gets close to that.

space doesn't count.

also, it's from the 80's? Too old. Doesn't count.

Elder Scrolls games tend to feature "inside" as an actual distinct thing at the engine level (including some areas which are probably bigger inside than their outsides would indicate).

no idea what this has to do with anything

This then brings things back to semantics as things will tend to want to do, of course that probably also leads to lines in the sand... and well this is why the concept of genre is basically dead on its feet.

yes pretty much, all words are subjective and meaningless so we might as well not try to define things

I am not even sure entirely where we are heading at this point.

we were on our way to proving that E.T. for the Atari 2600 is open world

 

[FAST6191]

Why does not space count? Do we have to consider object density or something, do said objects have to be useful? Is it procedural generation that disqualifies things? What sort of procedural generation changes things (GTA uses it extensively for pedestrians and vehicles)? Also why does the 80's not count? Games had been around, presenting choices for the player, testing various skills and telling narratives for quite some time by this point.

The elder scrolls thing was a note of a mechanic. Going back to GTA I distinctly remember load screens between islands/sections for 3 and vice city (plus the other things I said*), moreover I recall a Tony Hawk game where you quite literally had loading tunnels, something the rather desolate patches between various places in later games do a lot to mask the loading of. I do not really observe much of a distinction between Mario's paintings and some of those, especially not on various mathematical levels.

*

Spoiler: GTA3 minor spoiler

once you anger the mob in the first section you are doing well to drive some of those streets again thanks to all the shotguns, indeed it is actually very difficult and certainly harder than anywhere else/anywhen else in peacetime GTA3. Likewise though I can leave the ghetto early on in San Andreas and step foot on the later sections my wanted level means some significant portion of the functionality in unavailable. Functionally this seems like restricted levels and levels in general.

I am not arguing "words are meaningless so why bother?", indeed I am arguing for words to be defined so we can have some kind of conversation on the matter (it is more or less how language and science work).

 

[zeello]

Why does not space count?

The main reason space does not count is because it's easier to make things bigger in space, and because all distance between two objects are arbitrary. I can render two pixels and make them a billion miles apart, does it make the game any larger than if they were right next to each other?

That aside, I am not familiar with the game so I have no idea the level of depth of the environment. Since you say it's from the 80's, I'm not expecting much. For all I know the game is merely a bunch of white dots in vast space. Which I'm sure is impressive in its own way (and hell, maybe even more impressive than GTA3) however it is fair to say that it's something else from GTA3.

Do we have to consider object density or something, do said objects have to be useful

Yes, and yes, and the game probably has to be on the ground.

Is it procedural generation that disqualifies things?

I doubt it, since I would probably describe open world games as being functionally similar to procedural generation. (assuming I understand what procedural generation is) It is the exact opposite of Nintendo games in which the environments are manually curated, and specifically sized. (SM64 levels exactly big enough for 8 or however many stars) I guess that is part of what defines open world to me personally.

Also why does the 80's not count?

From an evolutionary standpoint, the relationship becomes more fringe the older something is.
Mind you, after writing my last post I realized that, for example, 20 years from now we still may have FPS games and Call of Duty is still a thing. In which case obviously they would be related to the FPS to the present. But I can nevertheless safely rule out the 80's due to the drastic changes we have undergone since then.

I do not really observe much of a distinction between Mario's paintings and some of those, especially not on various mathematical levels.

the levels in Mario are not physically connected to one another

*

Spoiler: GTA3 minor spoiler

once you anger the mob in the first section you are doing well to drive some of those streets again thanks to all the shotguns, indeed it is actually very difficult and certainly harder than anywhere else/anywhen else in peacetime GTA3. Likewise though I can leave the ghetto early on in San Andreas and step foot on the later sections my wanted level means some significant portion of the functionality in unavailable. Functionally this seems like restricted levels and levels in general.

just because a game is open world does not mean it cannot structure the player's progress through the game

 

[McHaggis]

space doesn't count.

also, it's from the 80's? Too old. Doesn't count.

So, from your perspective, "open world" means:

• Not in space.
• Not from the 80s or older.
• Must have the words "Grand Theft Auto", followed by a number greater than 3 and/or a subtitle other than "London" in the game title.

That last point must be important, as it's the only thing that seems to prevent Hunter being classed as an open world game. Other than that, Hunter's game play is pretty comparable to Grand Theft Auto .

 

[Yil]

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

Doesn't say it was the first, heavily implies it was the thing that popularised the concept though. Earlier GTA titles, Elite, Might and Magic... all somewhat earlier and all incredibly popular in their day.

"the game is cut up into levels"
San Andreas saw me shuffled around the map and going back to earlier places was not exactly much use most of the time.

"the levels are cut up into stars"
Several locations were reused/revisited a lot.

"the levels funnel you into specific paths"
Once you have taken whatever circuitous route you prefer to the start of the trick show then most would hardly call most earlier GTA missions sprawling, free form and dynamic. The Far Cry sequels might be able to get there (though this is not necessarily a good thing) and possibly some of GTA5, not so much for pre 5 GTA.

"not all the stars are attainable right off"
Leaving aside the islands/sections/instant wanted of GTA (possibly also things like the mafia in GTA3 meaning you have to think long and hard about going back to the first location after a certain point in the story) there are parts that you really need flight/skills/weapons and more that the game very specifically downplays to get into.

At this point we are very much into the semantics world (what move you can do in a fighting game depends upon your character, though as you can freely choose a given character does that still count? Maths would argue it changes nothing and is just a branching path on an instance, most gaming types are less mathematically inclined and might argue otherwise), and that only gets worse if you include some minutia that a developer might have included as a bonus or something, even worse if you include glitches.

The main reason space does not count is because it's easier to make things bigger in space, and because all distance between two objects are arbitrary. I can render two pixels and make them a billion miles apart, does it make the game any larger than if they were right next to each other?

That aside, I am not familiar with the game so I have no idea the level of depth of the environment. Since you say it's from the 80's, I'm not expecting much. For all I know the game is merely a bunch of white dots in vast space. Which I'm sure is impressive in its own way (and hell, maybe even more impressive than GTA3) however it is fair to say that it's something else from GTA3.


Yes, and yes, and the game probably has to be on the ground.


I doubt it, since I would probably describe open world games as being functionally similar to procedural generation. (assuming I understand what procedural generation is) It is the exact opposite of Nintendo games in which the environments are manually curated, and specifically sized. (SM64 levels exactly big enough for 8 or however many stars) I guess that is part of what defines open world to me personally.


From an evolutionary standpoint, the relationship becomes more fringe the older something is.
Mind you, after writing my last post I realized that, for example, 20 years from now we still may have FPS games and Call of Duty is still a thing. In which case obviously they would be related to the FPS to the present. But I can nevertheless safely rule out the 80's due to the drastic changes we have undergone since then.


the levels in Mario are not physically connected to one another


just because a game is open world does not mean it cannot structure the player's progress through the game

So, from your perspective, "open world" means:

• Not in space.
• Not from the 80s or older.
• Must have the words "Grand Theft Auto", followed by a number greater than 3 and/or a subtitle other than "London" in the game title.

That last point must be important, as it's the only thing that seems to prevent Hunter being classed as an open world game. Other than that, Hunter's game play is pretty comparable to Grand Theft Auto .

Guys, perhaps I should not bring this up
But instead of arguing what's open world or not, maybe it's better to think of what the wii u zelda could be? The developer did state that the map is huge, possibly larger than GTA V, there are numerous things to do every day
And I must say that all the collectables on about combat. No one need full hearts/ magic gauge to explore a dungeon with puny monsters but super hard puzzles, and rupee mostly end up buying or upgrading equipments, getting pieces of heart or potion.
Being richer than possibly any one(not tingle who has a super gigantic wallet with billions inside) will not get you a mansion, start a business, own a workshop.

 

[cracker]

I hope it means that you can do "Hot Coffee" with Zelda.

 

[Bladexdsl]

these games are classified as open world...wow burnout huh?!

 

[cracker]

Paradise City is. You can drive around and choose what challenges you want to do and you can choose your own route to drive from start to finish.

 

[Bladexdsl]

anyone notice zelda isn't on that list?

 

[zeello]

Burnout Paradise is open world

 

[shinkodachi]

Are we debating what "open world" is or are we debating what restricted freedom within a game world is to the upcoming Zelda game?

Even in GTA 3 there are sections of the game you can't access without first completing certain objectives... How about Shadow of the Colossus? You're free to explore the entire game world from the start and you can choose in whatever order you kill the Colossi. You kill them all, get to the end battle and complete the game. Is that an open world game?

 

[Kane49]

How bout real life ? is real life open world ? or is it gated because i need to talk to npcs to get into buildings

 

[shinkodachi]

How bout real life ? is real life open world ? or is it gated because i need to talk to npcs to get into buildings

Life is the ultimate open world. You can do whatever you want, that's not to say there aren't consequences for your actions...

 

[grossaffe]

What I find funny is all this argument over the term "open world", when the actual quote in question was Miyamoto expressing his dislike for the term (while the title of this thread was inspired by IGN's irresponsible reporting by putting words into Miyamoto's mouth that he never said). Perhaps this is why Miyamoto does not prefer the term.

 

[Silentsurvivor]

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.”

They're gradually trying to do something that the first game already did years ago...

The first Zelda game was very "Open World", in fact it was one of the very first Open World games, at least probably the very first one with strong action elements and lots of items to collect, and I'm happy they're going back to that style. It had so much stuff you could do out of order, including dungeons. I mean, you could for example go straight to the first dungeon with just your sword and 3 hearts - or you could explore the game and get like 5 or 6 Heart Cointainers, the White Sword, the Blue Ring and a lot of other items even before entering it. The entire map was available from the get go and you had to explore at your own leisure, and it was full of optional items which were rewards for your exploring.

One good example is the Lost Woods. It gives access to the graveyard, which ends in Death Mountain. You don't even need to enter it to finish the game, since you can enter Death Mountain using the stepladder instead which you get in the fourth dungeon. BUT you can enter there through the lost woods early and get the the Magical Sword, the strongest sword in the game, which is in fact optional as well, very early - but as you know, Lost Woods is a maze and you must know a certain combination of screens in which you have to walk. To obtain that sequence you need to explore the game and find the old lady which tells it to you if you give a certain amount of rupees to her. It's genious and I wanted more of this stuff in Zelda for ages.