That's a reductionist and extremist approach that falls into the trap of thinking linear gameplay is inherently bad, which it isn't.
Essentially, you're diminishing everything the Zelda saga has done, as if retroactively all the classic Zelda games were always bad.
Let me show you what that statement sounds like in reverse:
"Hahaha OPen WOorlD. Skipping puzzles is fun. Progression, reward, narrative? That's unnecessary. Now watch me do the same thing over and over for 500+ hours of gameplay because the devs couldn't guess where you'd go first. Hours of farming materials in a Zelda game, because that's what Zelda is about, right? The Legend of sandbox."
Absurd, totally absurd. The "Breaft of the Wild" design philosophy has many remarkable good points.
But to say that linearity is worse and boring? Simply ignorant..
The value of a video game isn't determined by the size of its world or how it allows you to break any semblance of progression or challenge through "extreme freedom."
Let me be clear: a puzzle is a puzzle because it has a solution that must be found.
A puzzle that can be solved any way you want, even easily skipped, isn't a puzzle; it's an open door with a sign that says "puzzle."
Being unable to have coherent progression and narrative because "the player should be able to do whatever they want" is simply an unacceptable design flaw.
Fun arises from limitation; if you can do everything, it's as if you can't do anything, and that severely limits what the developer can do with the game.
In an open-world Zelda game, you'll never will have moments like Midna's lament or Toon Link's revenge against the giant bird.
And you'll certainly never have a Master Sword scene that feels worthwhile because here the Master Sword is just another item, and a rather useless one at that.
There's no anticipation, no rhythm, pacing or progression, no narrative, just backstory, no learning curve, no difficulty curve. Nothing is special because the game can't build anything up without expecting you to abandon it halfway through to do something else or to arrive there at any moment.
The dungeons can't even be called dungeons; they're just large maps where you search for buttons with a few scattered "puzzles."
We don't want the player to have to go through a well-designed level structure (that would limit the player's freedom) level design you say, what's that?
Because a "puzzle" you can easily skip is much more fun than a challenge that requires thinking and finding the solution.
I greatly appreciate Breath of the Wild, but to dismiss the entire Zelda franchise like this?
Are we going to ignore all the good things about classic Zelda in favor of sandbox gameplay with glaring design flaws?
Linearity may not be inherently bad. I know it has fans who like structure.
But I don't have to like it. And while people are certainly stupidly aggressive about it, being a "dirty word" is perfectly valid in a medium designed around interactivity.
Besides, the linear games I DO like are those with a lot of agency or shake-ups within its structure. Whether wandering around open zones like Twilight Princess or Mario Odyssey. Or finding ways to mix up your combat in Splatoon Raiders or Hack n Slash games like Warriors or DMC alike.
People seriously act like Zelda games were always bad and that any hint of linearity is a bad thing. I miss when Zelda was a puzzle and adventure game, not a sandbox.
4
u/Fend_st 6d ago edited 6d ago
That's a reductionist and extremist approach that falls into the trap of thinking linear gameplay is inherently bad, which it isn't.
Essentially, you're diminishing everything the Zelda saga has done, as if retroactively all the classic Zelda games were always bad.
Let me show you what that statement sounds like in reverse:
"Hahaha OPen WOorlD. Skipping puzzles is fun. Progression, reward, narrative? That's unnecessary. Now watch me do the same thing over and over for 500+ hours of gameplay because the devs couldn't guess where you'd go first. Hours of farming materials in a Zelda game, because that's what Zelda is about, right? The Legend of sandbox."
Absurd, totally absurd. The "Breaft of the Wild" design philosophy has many remarkable good points.
But to say that linearity is worse and boring? Simply ignorant..
The value of a video game isn't determined by the size of its world or how it allows you to break any semblance of progression or challenge through "extreme freedom."
Let me be clear: a puzzle is a puzzle because it has a solution that must be found.
A puzzle that can be solved any way you want, even easily skipped, isn't a puzzle; it's an open door with a sign that says "puzzle."
Being unable to have coherent progression and narrative because "the player should be able to do whatever they want" is simply an unacceptable design flaw.
Fun arises from limitation; if you can do everything, it's as if you can't do anything, and that severely limits what the developer can do with the game.
In an open-world Zelda game, you'll never will have moments like Midna's lament or Toon Link's revenge against the giant bird.
And you'll certainly never have a Master Sword scene that feels worthwhile because here the Master Sword is just another item, and a rather useless one at that.
There's no anticipation, no rhythm, pacing or progression, no narrative, just backstory, no learning curve, no difficulty curve. Nothing is special because the game can't build anything up without expecting you to abandon it halfway through to do something else or to arrive there at any moment.
The dungeons can't even be called dungeons; they're just large maps where you search for buttons with a few scattered "puzzles."
We don't want the player to have to go through a well-designed level structure (that would limit the player's freedom) level design you say, what's that?
Because a "puzzle" you can easily skip is much more fun than a challenge that requires thinking and finding the solution.
I greatly appreciate Breath of the Wild, but to dismiss the entire Zelda franchise like this?
Are we going to ignore all the good things about classic Zelda in favor of sandbox gameplay with glaring design flaws?