I don't think you can make the claim that an open-world Zelda, which we know nothing about yet (except that Link is not a girl, THANKS FOR CLARIFICATION AONUMA!!
), is going to be completely different in design to Skyrim's open-world in anything but visual design. Because honestly, I don't see how it can't be similar? In what way do you feel the non-linear open-world of Zelda U, in a fantasy, medieval setting, is going to be radically different enough to Skyrim's non-linear open-world, which is also in a fantasy, medieval setting, for it to not warrant
any comparison? And also not warrant people hoping that Zelda U
will be similar to Skyrim. I don't think people are necessarily saying that every open-world game is like Skyrim, we just want them to be!
Well it's the way the series' are set up that makes the overworld design different. It's hard to really compare both, I'll explain.
Zelda's a series that is very puzzle based and it will never lose that aspect. It sets up it's overworld like a puzzle in ways which directly relate to progression in the game. In games like
Skyrim the world is free from the off set, you can go anywhere and everywhere without necessarily progressing within the main game.
Zelda relies on opening up areas through advancing the main plot: you'll unlock an area, complete said area, get a certain weapon/key, and open up the next area. Even in the more nonlinear games this set up is still present.
Anyway back to the puzzle thing. You will encounter roadblocks in the overworld which is were the puzzle aspect comes into play. For example, look at any given province in the 3D open-like games... Let's take Woodfall from
Majora's Mask, it's not exactly your average linear walk to your destination, the area is set up like a puzzle coupled with a sequence of events which you need to do in order to progress. You'll encounter these areas a lot in
Zelda games while, in completely open ended exploration games, the journey is more in a straight line rather than moving back, forth, left, right etc. There will still be an element of challenge that comes with the journey, but it's more so like walking forward.
Mercedes said:
And I don't mean that literally. Skyrim is held in such high regard and is the benchmark title of today's open-world games not because of the content per say, but because its open-world had substance to it, which too many games lack. It had a variety of unique content scattered everywhere for the player to explore wherever and whenever. Skyrim just so happens to be the latest and greatest example of a non-linear open-world game done right.
I'd disagree with a lot you said, in terms of the game itself. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great game for sure, but it shouldn't be used as
the template for comparison of every game that has some sort of open world.
Mercedes said:
Skyrim's a good reference and benchmark when discussing open-world games because we of course want Zelda U's open-world to not share the exact content itself, but share the same level of substance and execution. It's exactly the same for Witcher 3, a non-linear, open-world game. All 3 games are likely to end up very different in gameplay and story, and are, but they share a common element, the open-world, and so comparison is totally natural and justified purely on the grounds of the open-world. It's not like we're comparing Halo and Mario!
I'll have to disagree. Any game can have an open world to explore yet they can be two completely different games. Should we compare
GTA V to
Zelda? Both share this "open world" concept yet overworld design is completely different in both games. They serve different functions.
Mercedes said:
So when using Skyrim comparisons it's moreso discussing the substance and execution of Skyrim's over-world and relating and comparing that, rather than what the content actually is. Zelda U's content will likely differentiate it from Skyrim as a whole, as do all open-world games, but we can still compare them on the common element they share and hope Zelda U shares, or is close to, or exceeds, the substance and quality of Skyrim's world.
You say the
content will differ, but substance and content are basically the same thing. Like at first you said that content should be a comparison, but later say it will be different from game-to-game - you just used an alternative word. See this is where I see the flaws in comparing them. Any game with some sort of open world shares the "open" connection, but apart from that, unless the overworld design is similar, the two overworlds will be act, play, and look differently.
