Zelda breath of the wild

do you think the next zelda game should have a bigger open world?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lITBGjNEp08
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>WiiU

Do you think the next game will have bigger people?

fuck no, next one should aim to be smaller with an actual dungeon system and caves to discover

actually just get FromSoft to make the next Zelda

No, it was a great size. Just needs some tweaks.

People complain about "all you find is shrines", but if they baked those challenges and rewards INTO the overworld, no-one would have a problem.

My dream is that they make 8 fucking huge dungeons that you can do in any order, but some parts may require you to come back later with new/better equipment.

>bigger
Fuck no. Just make it slighty smaller with more things to find like the shrine quests and more dungeons.

>come back later
fuck
that

i fucking HATE backtracking.

I think they should have stuff in it before making it bigger

>i fucking HATE backtracking.
so seems to every GenZ kid who has consumed nothing but linear "cinematic" trash their entire life.

>backtracking isn't linear

I think a Zelda game of the same size that subs 120 shrines for 12 or more full size dungeons would work just fine.

fuck no, make it smaller

BOTW was a good template but the next one should focus on having an actual story and actual level and dungeon design

They should make it a linear single player experience with tight level design and new, interactive and fun ways to play around the dungeons

It's not. Stop embarrasing yourself.
You could "backtrack" to old temples in OoT and find new areas with skulltulas and treasure in it. You had to "backtrack" in old Resident Evil games in order to solve puzzles and thus get access to new areas, all while being exposed to new dangers.

Hell, you technically "backtrack" back to towns and shit in BotW all the time just to level up your HP and Stamina.

All you want is to constantly get "pushed forward" to brand new areas, totally ignoring the joys and opportunities of exploration in adventures.

The problem with BotW is that basically EVERYTHING opens up after you get off the plateau.

A good adventure game lets you gradually expand your horizons, then find new things that make you think in new ways about older areas that you can return to.

Aside from the Zora shirt, this doesn't happen often in BotW, mostly because you get ALL of the slate abilities right away.

It's still the best Zelda game. "Do all these things in this specific order" isn't any better.

>if you can pick between two lines it's not linear

This but without the FromSoft part

Why not both? Have a massive as fuck open world, include shrine-like activities spread through-out, have 4-7 TP-sized dungeons. There, that's the formula for the perfect Zelda.

>actually just get FromSoft to make the next Zelda
youtube.com/watch?v=lITBGjNEp08

you're a fucking idiot.

i hate backtracking becuase i resent being forced to go back over areas ive already been to just to 100% a game, because i didnt have the magical macguffin to let me get whatever is there the first time i went around.

that is TOTALLY different from exploration.

Nope, smaller more varied world plz.

By that logic, every single game EVER is linear piece of shit.

Nah mate, you are just exploration hating ADHD fag.

wrong, nigger.

you often have to explore to 100% an area, and by extension, a game. probably even the MAJORITY of games require you to do at least some exploration to find all the collectibles and hidden areas.

what i dont like is finding the collectible, then not being able to pick it up because i dont have the macguffin. fuck that.

you want to put a shitload of hidden stuff in an area so i have to explore every inch of it to 100%? fine. if its a good level, ill enjoy it.

but dont dangle the fucking banana/jiggie/banana/book page/gold bar/whatever the fuck in front of me and make me come back later. i want to 100% every area WHILE I GO THROUGH IT, NOT come back later.

From has done better exploration and secrets than any Zelda in recent years, hidden areas like Untended Graves and Archdragon Peak are exactly what the LoZ series needs right now

>talking of "levels" in open world titles
>still being ADHD and wanting a linear experience from the get go
yeah, you are just inpatient child who'd rather play the same Super Mario Bros style games over and over again.

>no backtracking = linear
Not that user but you are fucking retarded.

>souls
>exploration
l my f a o

Literally just don't reply. He's a autist that believes if you have anything bad to say about Zelda you have ADD.

It needs more female clothing
And prostitution side-quests

You are the child turning open exploration and varied, game-spanning re-use of areas into "backtracking".

I stopped playing Nintendo with the WiiU.

>zelda game with from's janky gameplay

get the fuck out of here faggot

>Sup Forums wants voice acting
>gets voice acting
>voice acting makes game worse
Don't listen to Sup Forums or the people

>You are the child
Stop acting like a faggot. I don't have anything against backtracking and love plenty of the games that use it like Metroid and SotN. But if you equate a lack of backtracking with linearity then you are simply wrong and probably have the same mental capacity as a brick.

>actually just get FromSoft to make the next Zelda
oh fuck off already

ok

If you have no reasons to return to past area, they might just as well not exist. Thus, you might just as well have a "level 1", "level 2", ...etc.

Seeing hints and signs of some minor or major secret early on, not knowing what it means before much later, is a damn fine way of motivating players to explore and experiment with things.

Next logical step would probably be to add diving and underwater combat and exploration.

Also tons of more visually diverse temples, caves and the like that are just not shrines that are all made with the same tileset.

Items would be great to have back in and have the sheikahpad pro -skills botw had just be different items.

No, I think they should go the Majora's Mask way of taking the same assets and overall gameplay, but make the game world tighter with a focus on better sidequest and one new, well-defined gameplay gimmick.

sounds like some people didn't play DS3

Wow what a great point that merely addresses a positive argument to backtracking rather than addressing the point I made about how a lack of backtracking doesn't inherently make a game linear.

I hope the next Zelda game is a real Zelda game

>do a bunch of bullshit in a specific order with no indication from the game, thus practically requiring a guide, in order to find a secret or initiate a side thing
>oh and if you fuck it up (which you probably probably will because how the fuck were you supposed to know about it in the first place) it's gone for the rest of the game and you have to start a new file

Oh boy that's what I want in my Zelda. I love Dark Souls but fuck off all the same.

sounds like you didn't.

As long as breath of the wild took to make, how long would your vision of Zelda take to make? More over how much would it cost?

Didn't everyone but Sup Forums want voice acting? I thought we all agreed voice acting would be shit.

>implying access to areas disappear for the rest of the game
Untended Graves is hidden by an illusionary wall and can always be accessed, Archdragon Peak requires a bit of backtracking but it's clear that you're meant to go back there and it can be seen in the skybox of Irithyll the entire time

>a skip that the person isn't even performing correctly (you need to use the tree) and wasn't intended by the devs shows that DS3 is janky

No, they need to fill it more. More then just shrines. I've had this problem since playing the witcher 3. The witcher 3 felt so organic, even just exploring. Botw, and ff15 have lost my attention because they just feel so barren. Botw is great but it doesn't feel as good as oot or mm. Which albeit smaller still felt like a complete package to me.

I just want a big empty open world to explore, with a bunch of different enemies to beat up in different ways.

What a shitshow. Why couldn't they they just make a taller ledge so it is out reach?

I think the next Zelda game should run in that engine, but be a bit smaller world wise and focus on large-scale dungeons.

Think an entire dungeon going in and out of a mountain cliff to really capitalize on heat and climbing management, with a really great snowboarding sequence payoff after the dungeon's beaten.

The entire series is full of janky gameplay mechanics like that you faggot. Zelda games at least feel way more polished in that regard

That would be botw.

even Demon's souls let you climb small ledges

I mean if that was a Zelda game Link would just climb the ledge

I feel both witcher 3 and botw should learn from each other. Botw did visual design that leads you without telling you where to go way better and W3 had wayyyy more variety in it's content. If you combine the things the games did well, you would get my favorite game ever made.

Because your suppose to go from the tower to that ledge and kick down a ladder. To get it early, you have to take the armor off and jump off the tree. I don't think they patched it. But if you do the skip you get a ring and estus shard early. So it doesn't really make a difference.

I know those were the examples you gave, however I wasn't referring specifically to them, but to similar things From does that I don't want in Zelda.

But to your actual point, BotW handled secrets just fine. The problem was that there weren't enough of them, and they weren't developed enough. 95% of the time I saw a pile of rocks, I kept hoping I'd bomb them and find something awesome. But it was always just ore or a chest, a tiny cave with ore or a chest, or a thermal pocket.

Finding little bombable piles in obscure cliff faces that actually let to shit like small tunnel systems or mini temples or dungeons would have made exploration so much more enticing. It was just so rarely a thing, especially outside of side quests (if ever) that it was always a let down.

But finally, speaking strictly of illusory walls... they are, from both a player and developer standpoint, one of the laziest, shittiest elements you can use in design. They should be used purely for obscure easter eggs and shit. Not for legitimate secrets.

Yeah, very minor complaint witcher wise. The witcher literally, to me of course did everything right in terms of exploration etc. The flow can be iffy sometimes if your a newer player but all in all Botw failed hard. For me it's like I knew when it was going to end, Botw gives you a good gauge of your progress ie, the more you have the more likely you are to the ending. So while it's open world, I felt like i was still on a linear path.

I really never felt that way with the witcher.

It should have a open world
but it should be like this

5 links or 5 different zelda characters vs 5 different zelda characters villians i guess that interact with the world and make challenges for the other team.
On top of that when someone discovers a dungeon it is 5 people puzzles on top of it being 2x the size for a dungeon and it is mirrored.
While the people are working on a dungeon the other team could go and fight and stop the progress of their work in a dungeon.

>and yes I know every Zelda, your inventory is a good indication of your progress.

Less time than BotW took, considering most of this game's dev time was lost to the team learning the new physics and design philosophies. Now that they know what they're doing the process would be streamlined. They could make a world that is larger than BotW (not by too much) and filled with all the same content, then throw in full sized dungeons and additional overworld interactions (so that koroks aren't the only reason to explore half the map) and it would take the same amount of time or less overall.

Cost would be down too since the engine is already made, and they can easily recycle assets like they did with MM.

I don't think the way DS3 handled the illusionary wall for Untended Graves was that bad, since it was technically a repeat area, whereas Consumed King's Garden and arguably Archdragon Peak can be accessed fairly easily. I don't mind illusionary walls in general either, since from a Zelda perspective the equivalent would just be a bombable wall

Just out of curiosity since I've never played Witcher games, but what exactly does it offer in terms of content that BotW doesn't have? What are it's story and sidequests like?

I agree with this sentiment, but given how they wanted players to choose how much of the content they actually experienced, it would be hard to make necessary items out of the plateau. Don't think there's really much of a solution aside from optional abilities that manipulate physics like the plateau items, but aren't required to beat any of the dungeons in the game.

>just get fromsoft to make the next Zelda already
Will Soulsfags just fuck off already? Your meme genre doesn't need to seep into other series.

I honestly think the next game should have the open world shrunk by quite a large amount but be densely packed with dungeons, ruins, nods to previous titles like ancient Twili settlements, and large scale settlements that feel lived in like Castle Town. BoTW is actually really weak because it's just a large empty map filled with extremely tedious "trials" and despite having it since launch on Switch I've yet to complete it because it's just so boring after a certain point.

Again, I'm not speaking specifically to those areas. Honestly I haven't played any of the Souls games in a few months (finished 2 and 3, for reference), and I also drink a lot, so my memory of what each specific area is and how to access it and all that is gone. But either way, the difference between an illusory wall and a bombable wall is that the latter has a visual indication. Some illusory walls do too, but not most. And of course I'm talking without the social comment system, because as a designer you can't be sure the player is going to have access to it.

It comes down to if you prefer the kind of adventure where writing leads you to places or if you prefer the kind where you make your own adventure and the game tries it's hardest make whatever you do work while leading you to points of interests silently.

Where Witcher 3 fails for me is the Witcher sense. It feels like a cheap solution to a problem they could have solved with better visual design/quest design.

More and better writing basically but the world is much more static and there's not many different solutions to problems outside what the writers made for the player.

I would prefer a world one fourth or even one ninth the size, but with more and larger dungeons. ALBW showed how you can have a non linear game with dungeons (mobility and navigational items come from out of dungeon progress; dungeon rewards are things for the power of your player) and I feel a game like that with the freedom of BotW could actually be really fun. Knowing Nintendo though, they'll pull a SS to BotW transition and change everything.
>we like the motion controls of SS, the next game will have motion controls
>next game doesn't have motion controls
>we like the open world of BotW, the next game will have an open world

Breath of the Wild's size is fine. Start from there and just work on putting more Hyrule Castle like places or some good old fashioned dungeons. Maybe make the environments a little more varied. Get some underground caves or underwater stuff. Maybe a place in the clouds or whatever. Maybe do a Wind Waker sequel.

It wouldn't benefit from being smaller, just denser. More dungeons, more content besides koroks. A big problem comes in the fact that heart pieces are all in the shrines and weapons and tools are all just breakable shit that can be looted from enemies. Nothing to populate the cool secret nooks with anymore. They need to reevaluate the loot system and find ways to make exploring the world more rewarding tan just raiding a few camps every blood moon. Then add more dungeons with more variation in their design, and you'd have the perfect game.

How would you feel if the game had this kinda setup
>game takes place 100+ years after BOTW, Link is confirmed to be Link and Zelda's kid, named after his grandpa that passed away
>no love interest in Zelda this game, Zelda never shows up
>game is about Link traversing Hyrule fixing the problems of major towns
>game is centered around the towns of Hyrule, each facing their own problems (Goron City has Death Mountain stopped erupting, Zora City has their lake drain out, Gerudo City begins to freeze over, Hateno Village is thunderstorming nonstop), each dungeon has an adverse affect on the land around it, like a water temple near the coast polluting the coastline
>game focuses on giving Link new runes to use in dungeons, like Bomb Ultra that allows him to make retardedly huge bombs, or Cryonis Ultra that allows him to freeze entire bodies of water solid, Stasis Ultra allows him to slow down time, etc.
>dungeons are designed to be accomplished in a non-linear order, with rewards being unlocked for completing dungeons (for example, Goron City dungeon inside death mountain is bomb based and gives you Bomb Ultra, unlocks a personal smithy to upgrade your armor using less materials, and Heat-Resistant Armor, Gerudo City gives you Stasis Ultra, unlocks an arrow crafting station that lets you make your own arrows and gives you the Gerudo Sandstorm Set that resists both heat and reduces damage done from lightning attacks) in addition they have extensive indoor and outdoor areas that can be accessed without going through doors ala BOTW Hyrule Castle
>dungeons appear in order, three at a time. completing one unlocks the next
>final temple appears in the sky as the Temple of Darkness, a massive and difficult non-linear area that requires you to beat three minibosses to get keys to fight the final boss

I think I'd prefer a smaller more concise world like older Zelda games because I'm just tired of huge sprawling worlds. Like, not small enough where it's noticeable but also not big enough to where there's no intimacy with the world. But I'm probably one of the few people who feel that way. Everyone wants every game to be bigger than the last one these days.
Hell, I'd take Ocarina of Time's or Link to the Past's smaller but well structured overworld over BotW's massive but meandering overworld anyday.

>A big problem comes in the fact that heart pieces are all in the shrines and weapons and tools are all just breakable shit that can be looted from enemies

Scatter heart pieces throughout the world like previous titles and drop the shrines all together because they suck so much shit and make a series of unbreakable weapons or items that can be used for smithing to fill the secret places with. Problem solved.

I'll agree on the heart pieces, but throwing out shrines entirely seems rash. Lower the count and fill them with other loot, like armor sets. Also they don't need to be shrines per se, but just mini puzzle dungeons scattered throughout the land. Some can be sheikah in theme, others can be ancient ruins or cave systems. Adds variety, makes it feel like the count has gone down more than it actually has (so they feel less repetitive) and works well with the new system for heart pieces (actually old system).

Also make some of these rewards for quests, because that was another major issue with BotW, quests were all mostly pointless. As for unbreakable weapons, that breaks the loot system entirely. The master sword is only a single weapon and even that needed a timer added to it to keep the loot system from breaking down entirely. If you're going to have infinite durability weapons, you have to throw the breakable weapon system out entirely.

As much as I hate to sound like the Fromsoft fag, I think a Souls like loot system, with dozens of unique weapons that can be found once and upgraded, would be beneficial here.

I'd really rather them do what they did with Majora's Mask where it's a direct sequel to BotW but with a completely different setting and story.

is this a joke?

No. It should have good level design and a reason to explore the world other than korok seeds and shrines

Sseriously, there's not even a SINGLE cave in the game long enough to be called a mini dungeon.

maybe slightly bigger, I think Mira in XCX really hit the sweep spot in terms of world size/content

All OoT faggots saying it should be smaller and dungeon based need to be gassed

>Bigger = better
Why are you singling out OoT fags when dungeons based has been with Zelda since AlttP?

because OoTards are far more stupid than AlttP fans

>bigger = better

when exploration is a factor and content is increased to accommodate, sure

Bigger? No. I think it's a fine size as it is. Now, more content in it and slightly more involved dungeons? THAT is something I'd like.

>content is increased to accommodate, sure
But thats the problem with making a bigger mass, is that either you spread content thin to cover the entire area, or make a lot of meaningless content to pad out the areas. There's nothing wrong with making a smaller area more dense with content.

clearly not the case if monolith soft is working on it, if XCX is any indication

Which is what everyone should strive for, but we both know that is an exception, not a rule.

>Which is what everyone should strive for

right, so a slightly bigger world like I said

I'm talking about quality not the size of what they did moron. I don't care whether the map is big or large as long as the content is good, which is why I was arguing that there was nothing wrong with making the world smaller or more dungeon based.

Why would I think this when they couldn't even fill this open world with good content and had to resort to fucking 900 pieces of shit that don't even let you unlock anything remotely useful or fun?

Or you just go kill yourself?

Nothing From Software has ever done indicates they could do a good Zelda. In fact, they couldn't even make a very good game.

Keep in mind you literally can't even jump over most fences in Souls games, climb, swim and all you do is run from mob to mob.

No. It only needs bigger dungeons.

Except the price you get is hilarious, you jaded fuck.

Because the level design people and the gameplay people working at From Software literally just do their own thing and don't give a fuck. They produce some of the worst games I've ever played in my life and somehow get 9/10s for them.

This. A map as big as BOTW but where the four Divine Beasts are replaced by Hyrule Castle-tier dungeons would be a guaranteed GOTY.

>he's uniornically defending getting a literal turd without any addition to replayability at all for collecting 900 pieces of shit locked behind 100% breaindead, repetitive puzzles.

I am. It's hilarious. Deal with it.

The Divine Beasts are a hundred times better dungeons than Hyrula Castle which is just a huge clusterfuck of corridors and annoying enemies everywhere slowing you down.

Why do Zelda fans think slow = good?

The divine beasts concept is great, but they're too short, small and easy.

has a zelda dungeon ever been hard outside of the final one in zelda 2

If it's open world at all, I won't buy it. I didn't spend hours in Hyrule Field is Ocarina. I spent hours in villages and dungeons.

NotE is the last open world game I buy. I've learned my lesson, no game can pull it off. The only open world games I'll go back and play are GTA 3 and VC.