Create a new version of paste:

Okay so I want to say something outright, I've been kinda negative on my view of the new zelda game. I guess the idea of an open world scares me. I believe what Nintendo is good at is building a level from a gampeplay perspective, not from the perspective of building environment and using them for exploration. When Skyward Sword came out, I was actually looking forward to what i though would be more of a focus on open environments but quickly saw that these overworld "levels" were just that. They were levels crafted with a set path. Almost larger dungeons that focused on slightly different ideas, namely faster progression as in larger areas with more traversing. Essentially, these areas were dungeons with an enhanced pacing. But let me state again that this is the kind of gameplay that Nintendo uses to their advantage, they're very good at it. They have a very simple formula that they are often praised for, but I don't think it's even that complicated. I truly believe they simply consider gameplay before anything else which seems kind of obvious, but it's surprising how many developers miss the mark here.

SO why does the new zelda worry me? Because this game hasn't been marketed as a game about tight formulated gameplay. From the get go, Nintendo has taken this concept of an open world and shoved it down the throats of consumers. Do you know what other Zelda game kind of did that? Yep, The Wind Waker, and I will say hands down that from a gameplay perspective, it is the weakest 3D Zelda of them all. You can disagree but I feel very strongly about this, but I won't go into that now (Just so you know, I still love TWW because it has arguably the strongest narrative in any Zelda as well as some of the most stunning design and environments (But only when they get them right!!!)) So back to Breath of the Wild. Even the first time they showed it off, I forget who, but some important Nintendo dude, said something along the line of, "Hey, you see that big mountain over there?? YOU can go there if you want!!" And I immediately rolled my eyes. I'm sick of this idea that vast areas make a gameplay experience more "immersive" or "engaging" or even more interesting in general. And this is really where I feel I jump on board with the concerns of many other Nintendo and Zelda enthusiasts. What good is a world where you can explore, if there is nothing worth exploring." Nobody wants a big area filled with nothing. I don't think anyone will argue that especially with the recent failure that was No Man's Sky. So here's what I want as a player. I don't look at amount of content as a success, but quality, and of course I say this with reason. I could play the best concept ever, it and it would be short and unexplored and it would suck. Likewise, I could play a huge game, with no engaging or good content, and it would also suck. There's a balance here that needs to be found, but obviously using both of these strength would make an ideal game. Not just quantity of content, but quality. However, if I had to choose between the two, I would choose quality over quantity. Most of these points should seem relatively intuitive, but I figured I would set them up anyways.

So My concern with the new Zelda, is quantity over quality. I do not want Nintendo to give me a huge world and leave me to find why that world is worth it because I won't find it, I guarantee it, and other's won't either. I want to see Nintendo give me a world that isn't just meant to be explored. I want it to plan how I will explore it. I want them to think about what I'm going to want to do as a player, why and how I will do what I do. And again this seems so obvious, but god dammit, so many developers get this wrong!! Simply put, I'd rather Nintendo give me the illusion of an open world, make me feel like I'm exploring these vast areas, but all the while nudging me in the direction of what I want to see as a player, and rewarding me for being attentive. Simply put, if Breath of the Wild is going to be an exploration game, it needs to do something with the exploration. I need to be rewarded for playing the game the way it was envisions, but here's the catch and potentially one of the more difficult lines to tread. I as a player also cannot be punished for NOT playing the game the way it wasn't envisioned. And this is where exploration games get it wrong! They either have no direction, and simply tell the play, "Go on, go have fun," or they have nothing but inorganic, exploration that is nothing less than linear in nature. And this is why this type of game is so hard to get right. There are so many fucking ways to get it wrong, and very few ways to do it right. To be honest, I can't even tell you when it works best. I'm not a game designer. I'm simply telling you the things that I see that I feel fuck up these kinda of games.

But actually, I think there is hope for Nintendo. They do some pretty dumb shit, but I think they really do know how to make good games. And a very good strength, and something I talked about earlier was actually shown tonight at the game awards ironically enough. I'm guessing it was probably intentional but they showed something I really liked, like a lot. Essentially, they showed someone play a small portion of the game, a small fortress filled with enemies. One player decided to rush straight in, and take out the enemies with brute force, and he pretty much got bodied, another played used the environment and exploration to find a better way to do it. But here's the thing, both strategies would have worked. Perhaps one was better than the other, but had the players had enough skill, they both could have ended in success. And this goes back to what I said earlier. It rewarded a player for exploring, and finding a better way, but the game merely challenged the player in another way instead of punishing him, which I think is fantastic game design. And do you know what else is excellent about this. It has nothing to do with arbitrary stats or choices. As a player you could simply take a path based on your preferences as a player. This is GOOD exploration. Roaming big open areas is NOT good exploration. That is my opinion. 

So Nintendo has a great strength and that is level design, and not necessarily world design in my opinion. So instead of ditching this idea of condensed levels, in order for Breath of the Wild to succeed they need to use this to their advantage and make the exploration to focus on examining smaller environments to get through in the most efficient way. Like a puzzle in a linear level. Like the path you'd take through a 2D Mario, except there would be multiple paths all very different, all working towards the best strength of the players, and all not as obvious, yet not so conspicuous either. Therefore the players who are willing to think and find their way through, will be rewarded with the kind of gaming experience that they are looking for! I truly believe that this game needs to use this kind of gameplay to make it work, but then again, I realize now that I trust Nintendo more than I thought I did (idk if that's a good thing, or a stupid thing). The point is, I have some faith that they'll pull this off even though I personally think that what they are marketing this game as is not what they do best. But until we actually get the game, we'll just have to keep guessing.


A little note, again, this stuff isn't my specialty. I am not a game designer, and I don't even play that many games in general. Part of me is concerned that I've seriously overlooked some things upon writing this, and don't want to look stupid talking about things like I understand anything about game making when in reality, I actually don't. So please, don't take what I have to say too seriously, but if you can find anything I said here and agree with it, that makes me glad, because perhaps I am not alone, and perhaps I can somehow show someone what they want from this game. Anywho, hoped you enjoyed.