Now if only Wii U Zelda could be set in a world this big...

#1AncientAstroPosted 7/10/2013 6:10:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSAp_OsUPoY

I'd be in fanboy heaven.
#2Kromlech06Posted 7/10/2013 6:19:10 PM
K.
---
3DS FC: 2277-6801-3957
#3PaladinAlikPosted 7/10/2013 6:30:50 PM
AncientAstro posted...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSAp_OsUPoY

I'd be in fanboy heaven.


The thing about zelda games is that its not just the size of the world but the quality of the world. for example some areas have ramps or walls that cannot be climbed by normal means but maybe with the hook shot or the dominion rod (one chest where u had to move an owl statue comes to mind)

GTA worlds are more about eye candy. seeing a large world but the physical gameplay features remain similar. Flat land, maybe a hill, or a wall. theres a bit less understanding the enviroment and knowing how to navigate it.

You get what i'm sayng?

If the zelda world were that big, the quality would very likely suffer tremendously
---
If you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you're not ashamed, put this in your signature.
#4deimos91Posted 7/10/2013 6:32:52 PM
PaladinAlik posted...
AncientAstro posted...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSAp_OsUPoY

I'd be in fanboy heaven.


The thing about zelda games is that its not just the size of the world but the quality of the world. for example some areas have ramps or walls that cannot be climbed by normal means but maybe with the hook shot or the dominion rod (one chest where u had to move an owl statue comes to mind)

GTA worlds are more about eye candy. seeing a large world but the physical gameplay features remain similar. Flat land, maybe a hill, or a wall. theres a bit less understanding the enviroment and knowing how to navigate it.

You get what i'm sayng?

If the zelda world were that big, the quality would very likely suffer tremendously


I get what your saying while thats true for the older GTA games 4 was very lively and had so much detail put into its world you could tell it was a labor of technical love even if it didnt look the best
---
steam:fartman91/3DSFC:3265-5740-7951
#5AiddonPosted 7/10/2013 6:33:30 PM
I prefer Arkham City style sandboxes; they're not as wide, but they have more detail and feel denser. The problem with the GTA sandboxes (as well as The Elder Scrolls sandboxes) is that they tend to have so much padding.
#6Wiiplayer111Posted 7/10/2013 6:36:00 PM
I usually don't like big open worlds. Just Cause 2 is a perfect example. Its cool that it boasts the largest map ever. But there is nothing to do in it and objectives take forever to get to. It wouldn't be so bad but as before there was nothing to do between point A and point B.

And the objectives themselves were boring.
---
Look at you.... sticking to the plan.
didyouknowgaming.com
#7ADHDguitarPosted 7/10/2013 6:48:09 PM
No.

TP was huge and empty.
---
Still waiting for Diddy Kong Racing 2
#8plasmatic5Posted 7/10/2013 7:04:40 PM
I've only played San Andreas (fun game), and I loved how massive the environment was and that you had things to do in each city, but at the same time, most buildings were only there to serve as walls. There were obstacles, but nothing major standing in your way from exploring except for 5 Stars.

Zelda worlds, ideally, allow for exploration but at the same time limit where you can go due to what items you have or how far you've been. Generally, everything has some kind of purpose, even if it is just for that small chest with 5 rupees (we all hate them, but Zelda wouldn't be the same without them). Basically, there's more purpose to Zelda worlds (again, ideally), and that's achievable because the worlds aren't so massive. Because they are smaller, they can have much more detail.

This isn't GTA, but I always see people saying that Zelda needs to be more like the Elder Scrolls in terms of exploration. I generally think the opposite is true. The Elder Scrolls should take more hints from Zelda. The world of Oblivion was this huge, completely massive environment with different types of environments. Unfortunately, there really wasn't much there. There were caves and dungeons scattered throughout, but most of them didn't really serve a purpose except to be there; plus most of them just had rooms copied from one another and arranged in some fashion. Overall, huge world, no meaningful exploration. Skyrim actually improved on Oblivion a lot. Random quests would bring you to dungeons you'd never been to. Some of them featured shouts so that there was a point to exploring them (although most shouts were completely useless, but that's beside the point). They actually managed to make exploration meaningful. With that said, many dungeons were still completely useless outside of the random quest. You rarely got anything useful (large fault of the game in general though, not the level designs). So why were you exploring?

TLDR: Big world does not mean good world always. The larger the environment, the harder it is to make it meaningful and make everything have a purpose.
---
My Superheroes consist of the band members of the Who, Led Zeppelin, and The Beatles
#9TallWhiteNinjaPosted 7/10/2013 7:22:49 PM
Wiiplayer111 posted...
Just Cause 2 is a perfect example. Its cool that it boasts the largest map ever.


Doesn't Daggerfall still hold that record?

Aiddon posted...
I prefer Arkham City style sandboxes; they're not as wide, but they have more detail and feel denser. The problem with the GTA sandboxes (as well as The Elder Scrolls sandboxes) is that they tend to have so much padding.


Also, this.
---
Either the worst great player or the best horrible player you'll ever meet.
#10Jacob46719Posted 7/10/2013 7:23:33 PM
ADHDguitar posted...
No.

TP was huge and empty.


No.

OoT was smaller but was even more empty.
---
Backlog of games: Too many unfinished games.