Was the "freedom" necessary in Zelda: ALBW?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Joedgabe (5127 posts) -

Like for example Zelda a Link to the Past literally had the dungeons numbered in their order this one doesn't allowing you to do most of them at any order you wish. But is there a point in this at all? you still have to do them all anyways. I don't understand people that complain about the order to do things in a game if you still have to do all of them anyways. It felt ( to me at least ) that the dungeons and some bosses were dumbed down because of it.

#2 Edited by charizard1605 (58294 posts) -

Yes, it was necessary

#3 Edited by Pikminmaniac (9062 posts) -

I think it helped a lot. You get upgrades in each level that help build you up, but aren't necessary to beat the game. what upgrades you get is dependant on the order you deicide to complete dungeons in so you can have a completely different experience than somebody else playing the same game.

The freedom to go where you want when you want makes you feel like its YOUR adventure and in interactive entertainment, I think that's important.

#4 Posted by freedomfreak (41031 posts) -

freedom's always necessary.

#5 Posted by foxhound_fox (88791 posts) -

GOTY says yes.

#6 Edited by LegatoSkyheart (25625 posts) -

No, but it was interesting to know that the first dungeon I did wasn't the first dungeon my Brother-in-Law did.

Couldn't really say that since the first Zelda.

#7 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22489 posts) -

Not necessarily but it's a way of shaking up the formula.

That's what everyone wanted right?

#8 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9822 posts) -

I thought the game was clunky but still deserving of GOTY

There aren't a lot of games that I felt compelled to play again. I beat the regular quest and the hero quest in ALBW

#9 Edited by TheEroica (13726 posts) -

Its the most perfect game I've played since it's predecessor... The addition of freedom is a appreciated.

#10 Edited by foxhound_fox (88791 posts) -
@Shinobishyguy said:

That's what everyone wanted right?

No! I want Ocarina of Time 2! Or is it 3 now that Twilight Princess came out? ARGH!

#11 Posted by Phazevariance (10981 posts) -

Um.. yes. cause its different.

#12 Edited by charizard1605 (58294 posts) -

This question being asked is so stupid.

Was the character switching needed in GTA5? Was the emphasis on naval transversal needed in Assassin's Creed 4? Was the co-op needed in Portal 2? Was the Autolog needed in Need for Speed? Was the Player Search System needed in Pokemon X/Y? Was the multiplayer needed in Uncharted 2?

No? Then why include any of it? Because it changes the formula. You sound like the kind of gamer who would never be happy, no matter what Nintendo does. If they'd stuck to traditional progression and structure, you'd complain that it was another rehash of an old formula. Now that they did give players what they wanted the most (which was non linear progression and exploration), you are calling it unnecessary.

I mean, can you make your mind up and take a stance, one stance that doesn't change so you can criticize the latest flavor of the week?

#13 Posted by Crossel777 (5595 posts) -

Is that really how it is in the new Zelda? I haven't played it yet but allowing you freely go to any dungeon you please kind of implies that the dungeons don't really increase in difficulty as you play through them seeing as you can just go to any of them. I take it they're all relatively the same challenge wise? Or am I completely wrong. If that was the case I think I would prefer linear progression over complete freedom in this type of game.

#14 Posted by Joedgabe (5127 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

This question being asked is so stupid.

Was the character switching needed in GTA5? Was the emphasis on naval transversal needed in Assassin's Creed 4? Was the co-op needed in Portal 2? Was the Autolog needed in Need for Speed? Was the Player Search System needed in Pokemon X/Y? Was the multiplayer needed in Uncharted 2?

No? Then why include any of it? Because it changes the formula. You sound like the kind of gamer who would never be happy, no matter what Nintendo does. If they'd stuck to traditional progression and structure, you'd complain that it was another rehash of an old formula. Now that they did give players what they wanted the most (which was non linear progression and exploration), you are calling it unnecessary.

I mean, can you make your mind up and take a stance, one stance that doesn't change so you can criticize the latest flavor of the week?

I would take my time to explain to you but i doubt we'll get anywhere.... you seem like a rabid defense force defending a perfect goddess.

#15 Edited by LegatoSkyheart (25625 posts) -

@Joedgabe said:

@charizard1605 said:

This question being asked is so stupid.

Was the character switching needed in GTA5? Was the emphasis on naval transversal needed in Assassin's Creed 4? Was the co-op needed in Portal 2? Was the Autolog needed in Need for Speed? Was the Player Search System needed in Pokemon X/Y? Was the multiplayer needed in Uncharted 2?

No? Then why include any of it? Because it changes the formula. You sound like the kind of gamer who would never be happy, no matter what Nintendo does. If they'd stuck to traditional progression and structure, you'd complain that it was another rehash of an old formula. Now that they did give players what they wanted the most (which was non linear progression and exploration), you are calling it unnecessary.

I mean, can you make your mind up and take a stance, one stance that doesn't change so you can criticize the latest flavor of the week?

I would take my time to explain to you but i doubt we'll get anywhere.... you seem like a rabid defense force defending a perfect goddess.

He brings up a good point though. Guess if you're not willing to bring your side to light it's not as strong.

#16 Edited by RogueStatus28 (513 posts) -

Yes it was necessary. Seeing how most modern games hold your hand. This welcomed old school Zelda fans without the annoying tutorials. If you never played Zelda you may feel lost but if you've played countless Zelda titles you'll feel just at home, which was great.

In many ways A Link Between Worlds is an previous for what we're getting with Zelda Wii U.

#17 Posted by Joedgabe (5127 posts) -

@LegatoSkyheart said:

@Joedgabe said:

@charizard1605 said:

This question being asked is so stupid.

Was the character switching needed in GTA5? Was the emphasis on naval transversal needed in Assassin's Creed 4? Was the co-op needed in Portal 2? Was the Autolog needed in Need for Speed? Was the Player Search System needed in Pokemon X/Y? Was the multiplayer needed in Uncharted 2?

No? Then why include any of it? Because it changes the formula. You sound like the kind of gamer who would never be happy, no matter what Nintendo does. If they'd stuck to traditional progression and structure, you'd complain that it was another rehash of an old formula. Now that they did give players what they wanted the most (which was non linear progression and exploration), you are calling it unnecessary.

I mean, can you make your mind up and take a stance, one stance that doesn't change so you can criticize the latest flavor of the week?

I would take my time to explain to you but i doubt we'll get anywhere.... you seem like a rabid defense force defending a perfect goddess.

He brings up a good point though. Guess if you're not willing to bring your side to light it's not as strong.

Points like what ? My point was that why did they felt this was necessary ? what happens is that the dungeons have to be settled down puzzle wise and challenge wise in order to be more accessible from the beginning. Online is for replay value, Changing characters in GTA 5 is because characters have a personality and so different missions are played out from that perspective, link is a 1 dimensional hero he lives to save hyrule and zelda that's it. Idk about assasin's creed 4 but naval transverse sounds like adventuring. The whole point being those things are optional while this dungeon order is still mandatory regardless of what order you do. I find it unnecessary to do so on Zelda because it's zelda you play it for what it is if you wanna change the game around just play another game. If i was to complain about rehash on Zelda i would mainly point out that Pingpong fight with one of the bosses ( usually main antagonist ) they're always including and that washed up Eyeball monster god knows why they keep bringing him up. This was mainly a question towards the players not a complaint to nintendo if the OP was read which i'm not surprised it wasn't.

#18 Posted by bbkkristian (14957 posts) -

Sure, although I don't want that concept to be on the upcoming Wii U version.

#19 Edited by LegatoSkyheart (25625 posts) -

@Joedgabe said:

@LegatoSkyheart said:

@Joedgabe said:

@charizard1605 said:

This question being asked is so stupid.

Was the character switching needed in GTA5? Was the emphasis on naval transversal needed in Assassin's Creed 4? Was the co-op needed in Portal 2? Was the Autolog needed in Need for Speed? Was the Player Search System needed in Pokemon X/Y? Was the multiplayer needed in Uncharted 2?

No? Then why include any of it? Because it changes the formula. You sound like the kind of gamer who would never be happy, no matter what Nintendo does. If they'd stuck to traditional progression and structure, you'd complain that it was another rehash of an old formula. Now that they did give players what they wanted the most (which was non linear progression and exploration), you are calling it unnecessary.

I mean, can you make your mind up and take a stance, one stance that doesn't change so you can criticize the latest flavor of the week?

I would take my time to explain to you but i doubt we'll get anywhere.... you seem like a rabid defense force defending a perfect goddess.

He brings up a good point though. Guess if you're not willing to bring your side to light it's not as strong.

Points like what ? My point was that why did they felt this was necessary ? what happens is that the dungeons have to be settled down puzzle wise and challenge wise in order to be more accessible from the beginning. Online is for replay value, Changing characters in GTA 5 is because characters have a personality and so different missions are played out from that perspective, link is a 1 dimensional hero he lives to save hyrule and zelda that's it. Idk about assasin's creed 4 but naval transverse sounds like adventuring. The whole point being those things are optional while this dungeon order is still mandatory regardless of what order you do. I find it unnecessary to do so on Zelda because it's zelda you play it for what it is if you wanna change the game around just play another game. If i was to complain about rehash on Zelda i would mainly point out that Pingpong fight with one of the bosses ( usually main antagonist ) they're always including and that washed up Eyeball monster god knows why they keep bringing him up. This was mainly a question towards the players not a complaint to nintendo if the OP was read which i'm not surprised it wasn't.

Charizards points since they've gone over your head: GTAV didn't need character switching. I mean most of the time you probably played as one character. Assassin's Creed IV didn't need Naval Travel, but they added it anyway, Co-Op wasn't neccessary for Portal 2, but Hey it's there. Could we have done without a Player Search System in Pokemon X and Y? sure.

The thing is we don't need half the crap we get in games. Just like in This Zelda game we didn't need a character like Ravio to sell us our Items. They could have been in chests around the world and in dungeons, like previous games, It's not like that now.

So to say that it was completely unnecessary just makes you seem like someone who is just not satisfied in really anything considering that one little change in A Link Between Worlds made the game stand out against nearly all Zelda Games and according to Gamespot it made the game stand out over all games this year.

Was there a Point in the "Freedom" you get in A Link Between Worlds? of course not, but you know what it was a welcoming change in the series.

#20 Edited by GreySeal9 (24510 posts) -

Why does it need to be "necessary"? A lot of game mechanics/ideas/etc. are not necessary but enhance the game nevertheless.

#21 Posted by trugs26 (5595 posts) -

It feels good going to whatever dungeon you feel like first. It feels like you're exploring more so than being told what to do.

It's not "necessary", but it acts as a good game mechanic.

#22 Posted by charizard1605 (58294 posts) -

@Joedgabe said:

@charizard1605 said:

This question being asked is so stupid.

Was the character switching needed in GTA5? Was the emphasis on naval transversal needed in Assassin's Creed 4? Was the co-op needed in Portal 2? Was the Autolog needed in Need for Speed? Was the Player Search System needed in Pokemon X/Y? Was the multiplayer needed in Uncharted 2?

No? Then why include any of it? Because it changes the formula. You sound like the kind of gamer who would never be happy, no matter what Nintendo does. If they'd stuck to traditional progression and structure, you'd complain that it was another rehash of an old formula. Now that they did give players what they wanted the most (which was non linear progression and exploration), you are calling it unnecessary.

I mean, can you make your mind up and take a stance, one stance that doesn't change so you can criticize the latest flavor of the week?

I would take my time to explain to you but i doubt we'll get anywhere.... you seem like a rabid defense force defending a perfect goddess.

No, you won't defend yourself because you don't actually have anything to say that would help you defend yourself.

If you do, by all means, explain your stance to me.

#23 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

Was this thread necessary?

#24 Posted by nitekids2004 (2980 posts) -

ALBW is the best Zelda I've ever played.

I really like how you can explore 70-75% of the world outright thanks to the weapon rental system.

#25 Posted by lamprey263 (24233 posts) -

not necessary, but the game has a good flow to it and being able to do them in any order helps

#26 Edited by jg4xchamp (48402 posts) -

To me it added nothing to the experience. I don't see the value in doing anything out of order, because at least in something like Metroid it feels like you're one upping the game. You're breaking it, or put it another way speed running it(and maybe that's my issue as I don't think Zelda is fun to speed run). But fundamentally it doesn't change anything about the design philosophy of a Zelda dungeon. It is still a one item centric puzzle, and in this case it's the one item+plus your wall trick. Which to be fair is right in line with any other Zelda(be it using a musical device or turning into a wolf to solve a different aspect of the puzzle).

That said I would also argue it doesn't really hurt the game(which I think is just as important, it's very easy to change something for the worse, this is just an indifference). I didn't really feel too many difficulty spikes from the game, and puzzles by their very nature don't necessarily need to escalate for the game to feel properly paced(where as an Action game you expect some genuine build up). So as it stands the open structure is fine. In fact if I wanted to replay the game it would be an added bonus. I think they should build upon, and at some point it be nice if they started having dungeons that used multiple items in your inventory. The exceptions to this were those random side caves here and there with secret unlockables. Which are entirely optional and make an easy game even easier. That seems kind of like a major missed opportunity for a franchise that's going 2+ decades strong.

#27 Edited by jg4xchamp (48402 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

This question being asked is so stupid.

Was the character switching needed in GTA5? Was the emphasis on naval transversal needed in Assassin's Creed 4? Was the co-op needed in Portal 2? Was the Autolog needed in Need for Speed? Was the Player Search System needed in Pokemon X/Y? Was the multiplayer needed in Uncharted 2?

No? Then why include any of it? Because it changes the formula. You sound like the kind of gamer who would never be happy, no matter what Nintendo does. If they'd stuck to traditional progression and structure, you'd complain that it was another rehash of an old formula. Now that they did give players what they wanted the most (which was non linear progression and exploration), you are calling it unnecessary.

I mean, can you make your mind up and take a stance, one stance that doesn't change so you can criticize the latest flavor of the week?

The fuck are you even crying about? I fail to see how any of your comparisons match up with his question?

Character switching was between 3 characters that had their own brand of missions and their own attributes. Forget narrative impacts, they had their own dimension/part of the game world that helped move the game along at a brisk pace, as oppose to one character riding around the entire map back n forth, which probably would have gotten boring. Naval Travarsal from what I read is a good addition to the gameplay. A new element of the game that enhances or provides something different from the status quo in a meaningful way. In fact fuck Assassins, I'd rather a Pirates game around that naval shit.

The Coop was a separate mode entirely from the solo play, did not take away from the solo play, and in fact was a very well put together addition for that game. The best puzzles Valve had that game were in that coop.

His question seemed fair to me, what did doing the dungeons out of order really change about how a Zelda game plays? The rule sets of those dungeons still stayed the same. Instead of finding the item in the dungeon, you now rent it(which frankly seems to serve the aspect of doing things out of order, and less doing anything "better"). But you're still doing a lot of one item puzzle solving. Doing everything, but in whatever order really didn't change Zelda from what it's really been. The real change that has impacted this game is just all the nonsense dropped. No drawn out intros, less tutorials, less fetching(beyond the main quest being one giant fetch job on a narrative level), no chores, no having to go fish, no dumb sidekick who spouts percentages, etc. Those aspects not being there had a more meaningful impact on the execution of that game then doing the dungeons out of order. At least from where I'm sitting.

Oh and how they essentially picked up what SS wanted to do with the overworld(this should get more credit than it does) and turn the hub world into a puzzle of its own, in terms of how you get to your destinations. I thought that aspect of the game was handled in a satisfying manner.