the world in Skyward Sword small not hardly lol ...the only difference is that in Skyward Sword you explore the Sky and in other Zelda games you Explore on the Surface world ...having said that the Sky is huge and filled with lots of things to do.

I would say the negative of Ocarina of Time is Hyrule Field. It may not be as large as the one in Twilight Princess, but it's still just as empty and uninteresting. This was less obvious back in 1998 when the simple act of running around in 3D space was new and exciting, but it's noticeable in hindsight. I s'pose you already covered this flaw when talking about TP though, so it wouldn't be very necessary to mention it again.

In any case, I mostly agree with this list of pros and cons. One thing I would add would be to take some cues from the original Legend of Zelda on NES, something that Link Between Worlds sort of already did: Allow most dungeons to be accessible from the start, and can be completed out of order (Link Between Worlds didn't seem to have an intended order). There should still be an order that the game can suggest following, but it doesn't need to be followed. The sense of discovery has never been as good as it was in the original game, where you never knew what you were going to stumble upon just exploring its world, be it something as small as rupees (or even paying to fix doors) to a whole dungeon in itself. This kind of design is certainly tricky to pull off in 3D, but if they manage it then it very well could be the best and definitive Zelda game.

I felt like being able to play the dungeons out of order in A Link Betwenn Worlds added nothing to the game. Zelda Wii U needs to be built around the open world mechanic from the start instead of tacking it on to appease that demographic.

Zelda is supposed to be grand and ambitious.  The original Zelda was mind blowing stuff on the NES.  There were some PC RPGs that had that kind of scope but very little, if anything, on console (can't remember if Dragon Quest came first).  And that trend continued as the generations went.  If you listed the most ambitious masterpieces of each generation, Zelda was always in there.

I felt that way with Nintendo's franchises in general where with each game and each console they would push things further and further until the Wii where it seemed like they had found their comfort zone.  It might just be their decision to not upgrade the hardware much but it was like the Gamecube level was where they liked to be and they focused on different controller stuff instead.

Twilight Princess is essentially a Cube game so I feel it's only fair to compare it to the games of the GC/PS2/XB generation and it compares favourably.  But Skyward Sword was clearly released in the Wii/PS3/360 generation but I felt it seemed scaled back.  It feels like a game from the prior generation with motion controls.  It does not feel grand and ambitious compared to other games of its generation particularly when it came out the same year as Skyrim.  Maybe it's the hardware but then Xenoblade felt more grand as well and that's the same hardware and it's first party.  Zelda should not be getting shown up by another Nintendo game.

Nintendo going with an "open world" design makes sense because the open world games that are so common on the other consoles, but are practically absent on Nintendo's, provide that level of scope and size that made games like Ocarina of Time stand out in a big way back in 1998.  But Zelda has not really extended beyond the OoT template which in modern times would come across as small and simple.  Today's open world game is more the modern equivalent of what Zelda was seen as back in 1987 than current Zelda.  Videogames concepts have gotten bigger and more ambitious as time goes on.  There is a reason why Pac-Man was the biggest deal in 1980 but is now a nostalgia act - it didn't grow with the industry and eventual it seemed small and simple.  Zelda is basically cutting edge circa 10 years ago.

Back in it's peak I expected to be blown away by console Zelda games and until recently that was the case.  That's what Nintendo has to do again.  Not blow everyone away by Nintendo standards or by the standards of their console but just period.  That someone that plays the major releases on the other consoles takes note of the new Zelda and is immediately interested in it (and jealous that it isn't on his console of choice).

What? The Twilight princess open world had more interesting stuff than Wind Waker.

Once again Skyward Sword wasn't meant to be an open world game.  The whole point of Skyward Sword was focus on the dungeon aspect of Zelda by making the overworld itself basically it's own dungeon.  They even talked about how they made the overworld smaller then Twilight Princess as a direct result in order to make it more dense to do just that.  That was the whole selling point of Skyward Sword was since dungeons were the strongest aspect of Twilight Princess, Nintendo was going to have them a Zelda that was one big dungeon.

Games like Xenoblade and Skyrim might have huge worlds but things like puzzles and actual dungeons are a complete joke compared to what Skyward Sword had.  Hence why they have much larger worlds since the designers don't have to worry about actual level design and how things you do in one area will effect another.  Same thing with how all the enemies are designed as well since making enemies for games like Xenoblade/Skyrim are much easier to make since they can create 500 foot tall creatures where something as simple as a stab will make numbers appear and the enemy will die after a while.  In Zelda, they actually have to think about how Link will defeat these enemies since there's a hell of a lot more interaction going on in these games versus what are basically RPG's.


This is my number one worry about the upcoming Zelda.  In order to make a huge world, sacrifices will have to be made from other aspects.  I wouldn't be surprised if dungeon quality takes a hit since all the focus on the overworld is going to drain resources from the actual dungeons.  If Nintendo needs to make the overworld smaller in order to ensure the dungeons and gameplay are still great then I hope that's exactly what they should do.  I'll take something smaller that's actually focus versus something that's large for the sake of being large which is what many of these so called ambitious games are anyway.  Even Xenoblade which you love to quote, the giant world while fun to explore is only full of things to collect for fetchquest or enemies to kill MMO style.  There's nothing close to the unique puzzles, combat, mini games and gameplay variety the 3D Zelda's provide.

Yeah, that's what worries me about them using the term "open world" as well. My fave part of Zelda has always been the dungeons, so that's why I really liked Skyward Sword and aren't too bothered with a few empty overworld sections in games like TP and OoT since they have nice dungeon sets as well. My least-faves in the series are ones like Majora's Masks since they have lower dungeon counts.

I wouldn't be surprised if the delay is because they realised a large world is boring and they're figuring out something else.

Fantastic discussion topic, even if the opinions stated in the article aren't things I would entirely agree with. The surprising thing about Zelda is that it still manages to be a 40-hour experience even with barren overworlds. That shows how much actual content the developers put into these games, even if it is, at times, recycled.

Zelda needs to be a combination of spectacle and solid game design. With Wind Waker, I think Nintendo came as close as possible to creating a truly massive, technically impressive title with the core dungeon mechanics of Zelda intact. Twilight Princess focused heavily on atmosphere and improving dungeon design, while Skyward Sword centered largely around the mechanics of the Wii remote and I still respect it for that. I do think it's important to go back to the last NEW Zelda release, A Link Between Worlds, to see where Nintendo currently stands with the series. Obviously, that game was very much a sequel to A Link to the Past, but its non-linear design, rental system, and traversal mechanics were key. Most of ALBW's overworld was available to the player from the start, with the new wall-crawling opening up different areas as they progressed. In the initial reveal, Aonuma stated that the way the game would be designed would have players figuring out traversal as a puzzle as well, and I believe the non-linear nature of the previous game was also mentioned outside of the video. While the early build seemed to show very standard sailcloth and Epona travel, I think we'll see traversal impeding players in this new open world much more.

Many areas were only accessible after the painting mechanic was found, and though it was very much like an additional item in Link's inventory, the idea was pushed to its limits and I personally enjoyed it. If the Zelda team could come up with two or three of these traversal-based mechanics, they could tier the dungeons in different ways, perhaps allowing a player who discovers one type able to tackle dungeons 1-3 but another player stumbling on a different one on his first playthrough the ability to get to 2-4. This could be as simple as flippers for swimming underwater or in a lake, or even a Roc's Cape. I still believe that the Hook/Clawshots are much better as exploratory items than they are in combat (fabulous City in the Sky boss fight aside). Regardless, I think segmenting the progression is something that Zelda team DOES know how to do, and was able to get away with it in ALBW because of the size of the Overworld and the nostalgic factor. With a whole new world, there is going to have to be some sort of introduction, and I'm interested to see how they will introduce the massive map to players.

Also, in ALBW items were available to the player at the start as well, with only one locking off two of the "last" dungeons to the player because of its absence. This meant the player could go in any direction without much resistance. Obviously, it streamlined the game and its puzzles, which I know some people had issue with, though I liked the many riffs on a singular item featured exclusively in a dungeon despite it also taking away some complexity. Items should not be on a rental system- that is key. Rather, I think the player needs to be able to find these items on their own via exploration and THEN use them to enter and explore dungeons. This would allow more fleshing out of the Overworld while allowing them to centralize item-based puzzles like in ALBW, which may not be the ideal solution but perhaps the necessary one because of time and development constraints. It would still allow the player to explore but not access each dungeon, giving them more time to get to know the world.

I think Zelda's previous formula of "

...Unfinished sentence will forever go unfinished.

I really don't think Nintendo should only look to their own projects for ideas on how to handle the next Zelda game. When it came out, I really enjoyed Okami more than Twilight Princess, mostly because the latter felt so incredibly dull and overly conservative (and I firmly believe after the incredibly atmospheric Majora's Mask and the joyous and charming Wind Waker (which also features the best version of Ganondorf), so I wonder if a look to games like this one for bits and pieces that were done in them would partly improve the Zelda experience. (i.e. the economy in Okami was nowhere nearly as screwed as the one in Twilight Princess because you had to earn your money through combat, treasure hunting and fishing rather than getting lots of money basically everywhere and your money was actually worth something)

Nooooooo don't leave us in suspense!

I agree that this is an interesting discussion, but why stop at OoT?

I think Nintendo is already hitting the nail on the head in terms of what to be inspired by from past Zelda games. It's possible that the original has not been looked to in any particular way at all given that Zelda II was so different from it. I can't say much about the 2d Zelda games: I've only played about half of The LoZ and LttP, given the number of hours and plot points experienced. What I can say though is that I love the original's open world, including the exact point made by Nintendo that you could actually go somewhere you shouldn't be yet. Now that is believability.

What the greatest games have is atmosphere and mood, which go hand-in-hand. All Legend of Zelda games have it, to varying degrees. Ocarina of Time (OoT) is simply golden. Majora's Mask is eerie and forlorning. Skyward Sword I will have to replay to be able to speak of as much as others. Twilight Princess (TP) is epic and majestic. I think it's crucial plot moments are as good as OoT's in their own way.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that we need mood, here. Always mood. And that's something that can only be inspiring and inspired. So far, from these short glimpses of footage, I like the mood. It kind of blends TP's epic majesty with Skyward Sword's cheer.

Looking forward to it...

You sir are quite mad. Link to the Past was better than Zelda 2 in everything except difficulty level.  LA had completely different characters, story, location, enemies... Far from stale.

I doubt Zelda is going to be "open world" like Skyrim. They probably mean you'll find items in a random cave instead of a 7 dungeon routine, and they're not gonna circle it on the map for you. There's not gonna be a gajillion sidequests to do. But I am excited that every area isn't going to have square boundaries with only two or three exits for the disc to load. Know what I mean? It's gonna be like old times in Hyrule Field, but with the wind blowing in your hair as you question whether you're ready to run up Death Mountain with just a sword in your hand and Malon's song in your heart, and no mini-cutscenes to mask the load times.