@charizard1605 said:
@93BlackHawk93 said:
@charizard1605 said:
@93BlackHawk93 said:
@charizard1605 said:
@Desmonic said:
@charizard1605: Ah, ok. So it's more in a game direction sense rather than story and all that. Cool. Question: weren't 3D Zeldas already like that though? Non-linear?
Oh Jesus Christ, no. They got more and more and more linear as time went by, until Skyward Sword was basically a corridor game, and Spirit Tracks was, quite literally, on rails. The exception to this would be Wind Waker, I guess, but even Wind Waker had gated progression.
What about TT?
Twilight Princess had a world map, but progression was highly guided and linear. Basically, unless you had done what the game had wanted you to do, you were pretty limited in what you could do. it was a more restrictive version of Ocarina.
I guess... But I wouldn't say linearity is necessarily a bad thing imo.
TP*
When a game like Skyrim is being a better Zelda for me than Zelda itself, there's a problem.
While you are qualifying it with "for me," this doesn't make sense to me. What has always made Zelda unique was the intricate dungeon designs that have this beautifully clever structure. Zelda dungeons have always been very dense with ideas; Skyrim dungeons don't have these qualities whatsoever.
On the other hand, Zelda overworlds, while having a lot of character and secrets, are rather small and limited in nearly all the Zelda games and don't really have any resemblance to Skyrim.
While Skyward Sword did go too far in the direction of being linear, it has far more resemblance to what is considered to be Zelda at its prime than Skyrim does. Skyward Sword's dungeons, which are among the most clever in the series (Sandship and Ancient Cistern anyone?), alone make it a better Zelda than Skyrim IMO.
Log in to comment