How does a dungeon style overworld contribute to greater linearity? If anything it does the exact opposite with an enemy or puzzle around every nook and cranny. I'm also confused by the bolded part. sidequests and secrets naturally go hand in hand. Also, A Link to the Past proved the secrets are here to stay in the franchise with its numerous cave collectibles.
Dungeons must be solved from beginning to end (don't think physically). In order to solve a dungeon you must first execute step 1, then execute step 2 and so on... Overworlds should provide freedom so that you are allowed to do step 27 first if you see fit. Or make it so that so that you could do step 1 first, but it would be easier if you did step 2 and then step 1. If you convert an overworld into a dungeon like place, you go from "free until you get to the step by step process" to "step by step by step by step" which provides a much more narrow experience. Essentially what your asking is that two areas with separate experiences still be two areas but have the same experience. In the bold part, I was saying that I prefer an overworld like Majora's Mask in which it mainly consisted of
EXTRA secrets. (My bad for not using that word).
Essentially, MM is the best way to meet half way because it had mini dungeons prior to the actual dungeon, while still giving you free roaming areas.
This I disagree with. Skyward Sword provided a more fluid and immersive storytelling experience than any previous installment. Cutscenes pulled you into the action especially those involving Ghirahim following completion of the Lanayru Mining Facility and right before Link's final confrontation with him. Also, most dialogue included pause for a player choice revolving around three usually humorous choices. The story went full circle and was a great adventure of a romance. For once in its long history, an installment answered more questions than it created.
From this, I gathered that you interpreted my comment as saying SS didn't have better story telling. That wasn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that while it may have better story telling, which is another argument, its style of story telling was not suited for Zelda games because of how its effecting the gameplay itself. The bolded part in your statement I disagree with, but its not what we're discussing right now.
I'm talking about upgrading Link's actual items, not getting larger quivers and bomb bags and the like.
Like the remote control bombs you get in MC? Or the fire/ice arrows in OoT that provide more damage?
I still feel that finding a way to upgrade the items by traversing the land, rather than being told directly how to do it, is more what we Zelda fans are looking for. We tend to hate being given answers.
Can't disagree more. While I do think there should be some kind of hub in the middle to explore (or something along those lines), the areas leading up to the dungeons should be puzzle-oriented. Games like MC and ALttP really benefited from this, and it's something people often ignore. It helps keep the action fluent and really builds up the anticipation of getting to the dungeon. Traveling across barren and boring terrain for about 15 minutes is, well, boring. What SS did with its overworld was not. I'm just tired of seeing fans whine and complain saying that Zelda's overworld needs to be all vast and spacious when all that does is typically create bland and uninteresting scenery.
I'm not against puzzle-oriented lands. I'm against the puzzles in that land being like dungeons in which exploration is very limited. In SS, I was dissapointed in the world because I kept feeling like all I was doing was going forward. I couldn't stop and say "oh hey, whats that over there?" too many times, because the land was centered around that almost everything was
SUPPOSED to be explored. And as far as the bold statement, in any entertainment, the majority fan opinion is used to determine the formula because how humans determine if something is "good" from any art point of view is if alot of people think its good. If alot of fans are saying it, then its probably a good idea. (Though I Personally don't think baron lands are too good of an idea, but I've never seen fans say that its good)
I don't see how it could get old. Lots of things in the Zelda series have been used over and over again (such as the targeting system) and they haven't gotten old. The Stamina Gauge is something that made us plan out our moves before we executed them and prevented the spamming of the Spin Attack (something that was really easy to do in games like TP). Of course, if more parkour were to be implemented, it could get in the way of that, but I'm sure Nintendo could find away around that. They always seem to do with these sort of things.
There are alot of things that many fans complain about is overused as well. You make some good points here, but all in all I was really saying that this could go either way. I'm not against it, but if Nintendo never does it again, I won't complain.
Bosses that focus more on the combat rather than a puzzle aspect (i.e. the "stun phase" style).
Oh, well in that case, I'll say what I always say. MM had the best style of boss fights. The bosses in MM all had formulas where you had to figure out the best way to defeat and defend yourself from the boss. But the best part was, with the exception of Goht, there were multiple good ways of defeating a boss. The SS bosses were okay and really fun, but they all had singular ways of winning. Sure they were action oriented, but the fun of Zelda is figuring things out. LOTS of things, even little things like how to beat a boss. Most average games probably find this annoying, but Zelda fans tend to love it.
It really aids the combat. Not sure why you'd have a gut feeling that it wouldn't work.
Honestly, me either.
Not like it was in SS. It worked a lot like Metriod this time around. We returned to a previous area, meandered through a bit of familiar territory, and gained access to a previously blocked-off area via a newly-received item. It was really cool and gave each province great diversity.
I still don't see much of a difference only that in SS it was more "in your face" about it. And if that's the case, I wouldn't want to see that in future Zeldas porque anyway you make a player feel like his freedom is taken away is bad design for a Zelda game. We want to be free! We want to explore!
Disagree heavily. I find more story involvement to make games more immersive and interesting. I'd rather the second half of future games to feature some open choice in which dungeons can be done first, but the better storytelling should stay. It enhances the game ridiculously. To each his own, I suppose, but I just can't see why you wouldn't want a better story.
In response to the last sentence, I wasn't arguing the story (but I will gladly do so) I was arguing the storytelling. As to the rest, Zelda has done a great job thus far interesting the player with their story in the way that they told it. SS style of storytelling is forceful onto the player. While they do give you choices to speak, you feel more like a slave to SS's story than most other Zelda games. SS tells you all the important information you need to know, up close and Personal, whereas other Zelda games, you found yourself wondering if you spoke to the right Person. It goes with what I've been saying this whole reply, SS is less free and keeps you on its own path which is not good for a game series whose fans love exploration and puzzle solving.
