Ubisoft Towers in Zelda Switch

[Spirit]

There seems to be an unwritten rule in open world games that you need vantage points to fill in the map and drink in the sights.

Towers are usually the most common use of these vantage points, Assassin's Creed does it, Far Cry does it, Horizon Zero Dawn did it and Breath of the Wild did it.

There isnt really anything wrong with having towers but it does make things a bit formulaic when you get to a new area with one in.

Since Zelda Switch is going to be open world like BotW (Aonuma said so) do you think we'll see more Ubisoft style towers across Hyrule in the new game?

 

[Jirohnagi]

Probably we will see more towers though honestly i'm hoping they actually have adjoining buildings and the like

 

[DarkestLink]

I hope not. They really served no function in BOTW. Usually they exist as an option for players who don't want to explore and just want to know where all the important stuff is, but here they just don't give you any (relevant) information. It feels like they were placed there because Aonuma doesn't understand the basics of making an Open World and said "Well this game had towers, I guess that's a thing you're supposed to do in Open Worlds, let's add our own."

 

[Castle]

Whatever happened to just going off in a direction and seeing what's there? It's worked for games before everyone started copying Ubisoft's inane towers.

The only reason every OPIN WAHRRLDD!! game has to have Ubisoft towers now is because no one has any sense of originality. Every design decision ever made now is by the numbers, no deviation from the present formula. They couldn't do anything else if they tried. They simply don't know how. If you removed the towers from any one of these games it would make no difference whatsoever, but they're here to stay because OPIN WAHRRLDD!! games have Ubisoft towers and that's just the way it is.

 

[Deep Shadow]

Maybe a normal dungeon that fills the map out when you finish it?