Why do you like out of order dungeons?

Originally Posted by Khao

First you are given the choice to go to one out of a set number of stages (or dungeons, in the case of the hypothetical Zelda game that uses this system) and you can carry out whatever you got on the previous dungeon to the newest one, which could either be pretty much useless or extremely effective, if you are having too much trouble in the current dungeon, you can always quit and try again later with the equipment from another dungeon, though you always should be able to complete the dungeon even without the help from the other dungeons. There can even be a dungeon that's clearly a lot harder to beat than the rest, but near impossible to do without bringing equipment from the outside.

Each completed dungeon could make changes to the story separately, and after completing all of the currently available dungeons, all the separate story points would merge together in an important scripted event which "unlocks" a new set of more difficult dungeons, or like the Mega Man games do, just have a few ordered ones that are progressively harder until finally getting to the last boss.

You wouldn't even need to change the current Zelda formula to do this, you could start off with three dungeons, have the important event, and have, say a new batch of five order-free dungeons that lead into the end-game events.

^^^
This is what I was thinking. And then, the second batch of dungeons would make heavy, skillful use of the items/abilities acquired in the first batch.

The only problem is that THEN we'd have the "Zelda's structure is always the same" haters gain a lot of voice. You know, the griping about how it's always "dungeons > plot twist > dungeons > ending." Even though this type of gameplay structure would be ideal for a game like Zelda, you still have those that would only be satisfied with a more on-going, progressive narrative.

I prefer normal dungeon orders. It would be terribly annoying to go into one dungeon just slightly harder than the final dungeon and that take me an hour, then the next dungeon taking 15 minutes. And it wouldn't work for cutscenes and storyline, unless you want zero cutscenes and no plot twists.

If cutscenes can be triggered by certain dungeons, then you might go through every dungeon without a cutscene then have only one at the end, and that would be bad for the story. And I don't like visiting a dungeon I think I can do but have it turn out halfway through that I need a certain item I haven't got. It wastes time and is annoying.

What you call a "waste of time", others call "exploration." Exploration is only annoying if you don't learn anything interesting. If we don't learn anything interesting from exploration, then Nintendo are doing it wrong.

Because doing thigns out of order = variation = keeping things fresh. This is a primary reason why Skyward Sword sucks; you can do everything in one order and one order only. It's no fun playing the same old stuff three times in a row, and if it is, you're very clearly stuck in a trance.

One way to balance it would be to have a mixture of the two formulas. Let's say there are 8 dungeons. 4 of them you would be able to do in any order. The other 4 have to be done in a fixed order. So perhaps the game is structured so that at the beginning you go to the first ordered dungeon for some of the early story developments. Then you have the option of completing any 1 of the 4 non-ordered dungeons, where you might learn interesting information relevant to the story, but no real plot developments occur. Then the game forces you to the second ordered dungeon, and the plot can progress another step. Then you have your choice of the 3 remaining non-ordered dungeons, and so on.

Or you could have some portions of the game be ordered and some non-ordered. In Skyward Sword for example, the story does depend on the first three dungeons being completed in order, since you're following Zelda, and Zelda must first learn of her destiny from the old woman, then go to the second fountain, then go to the gate of time. But what about the second set of dungeons? There's no need for the three flames to be collected in any particular order, from a story perspective. So Skyward Sword could have been structured to have the scripted story in the early part of the game, also using the linear progression to introduce the player to the areas of the world, then the player could go to the dungeons to collect the three flames in any order, then collect the parts of the hero's song in any order, then go to the end-game events.

There is of course the question of balancing dungeon difficulty and interest given that they can be done in any order. In terms of combat, this can be easily handled by having the number and difficulty of enemies in a dungeon depend on the order in which the dungeons are done. As far as navigation is concerned, the key is to make the dependence on earlier items be more a matter of difficulty than necessity. As an example, suppose a dungeon room has a large pit you have to cross. If you've acquired the whip, you can swing across a couple of platforms and fight a couple of enemies on those platforms, and you're there. If you don't have the whip, then you have to shimmy across a narrow ledge while flying enemies pester you, then navigate a difficult climbing section before your stamina runs out, then duel an iron knuckle on a narrow bridge, and then you're finally across. Alternate solutions like that would address the main path to the dungeon finish, but furthermore, dungeons could include extra treasures that can only be acquired with the right equipment. People don't complain about backtracking through the over-world to find all the game's secrets, so why not get the dungeons involved in that as well?

I like linearity to a point; I think Nintendo could do to be a little more flexible in their ability to write the story around player choices. Anyone who doesn't do so in this day and age is old-fashioned, and that's a risk they've been running as of late.

Originally Posted by Double A

What you call a "waste of time", others call "exploration." Exploration is only annoying if you don't learn anything interesting. If we don't learn anything interesting from exploration, then Nintendo are doing it wrong.

An "exploration" transcript.
"Hmm, where to go..." "Go over in that corner of the map" "Oh, ok"
30 MINUTES LATER
"Oh, a wall. Nice" "Go over that way then" "Sure"
15 MINUTES LATER
"Wow! A fence just sitting here for no reason!" "Ok then, it must be over there" "Alright, I'll try that"
20 MINUTES LATER
"Oh, a stream that joins onto one wall then another that serves absolutely no purpose" "Haha, nice. Well, go back where you started" "Ok"
10 MINUTES LATER
"Ok, back here. Now what?" "What's that door just 10 feet to your right?" "Oh, it's the door to the next dungeon lol. What a fantastic use of that 1 hour and 5 minutes."

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Blissful Heroine

Because doing thigns out of order = variation = keeping things fresh. This is a primary reason why Skyward Sword sucks; you can do everything in one order and one order only. It's no fun playing the same old stuff three times in a row, and if it is, you're very clearly stuck in a trance.

Ocarina of Time must suck ASS for you then? And Twilight Princess. And A Link to the Past. And Every damn Zelda game except the first one.

Originally Posted by Advance123

An "exploration" transcript.
"Hmm, where to go..." "Go over in that corner of the map" "Oh, ok"
30 MINUTES LATER
"Oh, a wall. Nice" "Go over that way then" "Sure"
15 MINUTES LATER
"Wow! A fence just sitting here for no reason!" "Ok then, it must be over there" "Alright, I'll try that"
20 MINUTES LATER
"Oh, a stream that joins onto one wall then another that serves absolutely no purpose" "Haha, nice. Well, go back where you started" "Ok"
10 MINUTES LATER
"Ok, back here. Now what?" "What's that door just 10 feet to your right?" "Oh, it's the door to the next dungeon lol. What a fantastic use of that 1 hour and 5 minutes."

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------


Ocarina of Time must suck ASS for you then? And Twilight Princess. And A Link to the Past. And Every damn Zelda game except the first one.

If you got to see some great views, fight interesting enemies, and got soe nice items along the way, it would be a fantastic use of time.

Yeah, the games have been getting progressively worse as far as linearity goes. But so has enemy difficulty, and since they've finally gotten around to improving that, hopefully they'll stop putting us on rails.

Originally Posted by Blissful Heroine

Because doing thigns out of order = variation = keeping things fresh. This is a primary reason why Skyward Sword sucks; you can do everything in one order and one order only. It's no fun playing the same old stuff three times in a row, and if it is, you're very clearly stuck in a trance.

Except, you know, for the one part where you can go out of order. Hero's Song anyone? Lanayru, Eldin, Faron, hellzyea. If you wanna knock a Zelda game for linearity, go with Twilight Princess.

Granted, that sort of non-linearity in SS is pathetic compared to other Zelda games. Despite that, I've rather enjoyed all the Zelda games I've played, and TP still ranks as my top Zelda game. As long as they make it fun and have a good story, I don't much care how linear or non-linear they make a Zelda game, although I do still have a preference for linearity.

Originally Posted by Advance123

An "exploration" transcript.
"Hmm, where to go..." "Go over in that corner of the map" "Oh, ok"
30 MINUTES LATER
"Oh, a wall. Nice" "Go over that way then" "Sure"
15 MINUTES LATER
"Wow! A fence just sitting here for no reason!" "Ok then, it must be over there" "Alright, I'll try that"
20 MINUTES LATER
"Oh, a stream that joins onto one wall then another that serves absolutely no purpose" "Haha, nice. Well, go back where you started" "Ok"
10 MINUTES LATER
"Ok, back here. Now what?" "What's that door just 10 feet to your right?" "Oh, it's the door to the next dungeon lol. What a fantastic use of that 1 hour and 5 minutes."

It doesn't have to mean the game won't tell you where to go next if you choose to follow order. You'd be given the choice to hold it off to explore and trying out tougher enemies prematurely to test your skills, for example.

Ocarina of Time must suck ASS for you then? And Twilight Princess. And A Link to the Past. And Every damn Zelda game except the first one.

You can do the Fire Temple before Forest (bow not needed in Fire), or Water before Fire (hammer not needed in Water). You also have a choice between Spirit and Shadow Temple. And in ALttP, you can choose to earn several crystals out of order. S0 it's only TP you mentioned that must "suck ass".

Originally Posted by Advance123

An "exploration" transcript.
"Hmm, where to go..." "Go over in that corner of the map" "Oh, ok"
30 MINUTES LATER
"Oh, a wall. Nice" "Go over that way then" "Sure"
15 MINUTES LATER
"Wow! A fence just sitting here for no reason!" "Ok then, it must be over there" "Alright, I'll try that"
20 MINUTES LATER
"Oh, a stream that joins onto one wall then another that serves absolutely no purpose" "Haha, nice. Well, go back where you started" "Ok"
10 MINUTES LATER
"Ok, back here. Now what?" "What's that door just 10 feet to your right?" "Oh, it's the door to the next dungeon lol. What a fantastic use of that 1 hour and 5 minutes."

Originally Posted by Double A

What you call a "waste of time", others call "exploration." Exploration is only annoying if you don't learn anything interesting. If we don't learn anything interesting from exploration, then Nintendo are doing it wrong.

If you don't like exploring, then that's up to you. That's the whole point of player freedom.

I've always like linearity for the simple fact that it's realistic.. If you're saving the world you're not gonna explore some random cave for 2 hours, then go save the world. Especially if the situation is dire. That's why I like the way Skyrim, and Batman Arkham City go about the exploring. You can do the main and dire quests first, and then go back and explore everything you want to after you save everything. But I also really love exploring. So either way it doesn't matter. As long as I enjoy the game I don't care if it is linear or not!

Since when was it realistic to have eerily-corridor-like walls all over the place, and people constantly telling you that you can't go here?

Originally Posted by DarkKnightGamer24

I've always like linearity for the simple fact that it's realistic.. If you're saving the world you're not gonna explore some random cave for 2 hours, then go save the world. Especially if the situation is dire. That's why I like the way Skyrim, and Batman Arkham City go about the exploring. You can do the main and dire quests first, and then go back and explore everything you want to after you save everything. But I also really love exploring. So either way it doesn't matter. As long as I enjoy the game I don't care if it is linear or not!

You kind of defeated your own point with the bolded sentence. Both of those games put heavy emphasis on going out of your way to explore right from the get-go. If you choose to save all that stuff until after the main quest, well, that's up to you. That's the whole point of these scenarios anyway; it's up to the player to decide when, or if, they want to do certain things. If it's more "realistic" for you to just go through the main quest quickly, most games that put heavy emphasis on exploration aren't going to stop you. That's the magic of player freedom; it satisfies everyone.

So then why not an Overworld that's fully explorable? You can go anywhere within the world, but at the cost of dying a lot since enemies will be progressively harder.

For out of order dungeons, why not hide some of them the way LoZ did with a few? You have to EARN access through actively finding out information; you know like realistically finding clues and directions. To keep story progression and pacing intact, create a flagging system. A cutscene or plotpoint will commence if you've completed a certain amount of either progression i.e. finding a certain amount of items that can help progress to the next level of story telling or a certain amount of dungeons must be completed.

The people who prefer doing what the game wants them to can by listening to the info given to them and the people who like to get lost in a world can go wherever they wish through the overworld and if they happen to gain info about a place that's technically 'further' in the game, they can go to it, but it wouldn't technically push the story forward just yet because they haven't triggered one of the progression flags.

This way everyone can be relatively happy. The next gameplay through can be varied and maybe someone who just followed the straight route through now has the option to spice it up next turn around.

It's only fair to have such options, because I feel gaming/media/everything always takes the majority's methods only leaving the minority to just suck it up. If it's possible to give both sides their cake and eat it too then Nintendo--the ones who always want to promise innovation and fun--should give it.

Allowing you to do everything from the get-go kills any sort of progression or a sense of "growing stronger" you could get from acquiring items.

How is this affected by anyway by "non-linearity" or elements of exploration?

Super Metroid did this in 1994, so im fairly curious why Zelda games wouldnt be able to do them EIGHTEEN years later.

You can go anywhere within the world, but at the cost of dying a lot since enemies will be progressively harder.

Dragon´s Dogma does it just like this and i think its pretty brilliant. Always more fun to have a giant manticore that rips your party into shreds work as a "wall" than have an actual "I cant go here now, gameplay restrictions. Sorry!"

You have to EARN access through actively finding out information; you know like realistically finding clues and directions. To keep story progression and pacing intact, create a flagging system. A cutscene or plotpoint will commence if you've completed a certain amount of either progression i.e. finding a certain amount of items that can help progress to the next level of story telling or a certain amount of dungeons must be completed.

Or then there is always the choice of actually making it possible that almost all routes in the overworld lead to SOME progress (be it then too hard or too easy), its the approach Dark Souls took and although the game doesnt have endless fields, tundras etc, it still manages to have that same cerebral feeling of freedom that the old Metroid games had.

If it's possible to give both sides their cake and eat it too then Nintendo--the ones who always want to promise innovation and fun--should give it.

Problem is, its pretty impossible. You cant please both, because the idea of even pleasing the current generation gamer is as follows:

Its the same as teaching a kid to ride a bike. At first you are concerned about them falling down, so you make the experience as simple as possible towards the beginning, so you add auxiliary wheels to the bike.

The kid is happy, he is riding a bike after all! Everything is fine and with lots of practice and a few bumps, the kid still manages to ride along with the bike and be happy about it.

Then comes the time when the auxiliary wheels are taken off, the kid is informed about learning to ride without them. Thus begins the process of the bike challenging the kid for the FIRST time. There are kids who persevere through the thick of things (and bumps, bruises and skinned knees) and there are kids who go home crying about the bike being unfair, "not fun" and various other negative remarks.

As far as the gaming industry goes, its basically making bikes that ALL have auxiliary wheels attached, to a generation that cant ride a bike WITHOUT auxiliary wheels.

Its outright tragic.

Originally Posted by Winterfell

You can go anywhere within the world, but at the cost of dying a lot since enemies will be progressively harder.

That's a point of mine. If I go 30 minutes out of my way across this huge map only to find out I can't progress, I'd be annoyed out of my socks.

I also don't really see much point in making it so that you can get say, the hookshot before the bow if you're going to get them both anyway before an important point in the story.

The reason I like Skyrim having a huge map and I can go anywhere is because that's got a hell of a lot more RPG elements in the game. I can go anywhere, get any weapon, level up any skill, fight any enemy unnecessarily, and without the need to continue the story at all. Zelda games don't need that because you're always going to visit a certain area, you're always going to get that weapon, you're always going to fight that enemy for a good reason, and you're always going to continue the story. I don't see any reason why we don't do it in the order we're meant to.

Again,

Originally Posted by Double A

Exploration is only annoying if you don't learn anything interesting. If we don't learn anything interesting from exploration, then Nintendo are doing it wrong.

Of course the pre-requisite to making a game with exploration is making a world worth exploring.

Regarding items, what Nintendo SHOULD do is make every item effective against different enemies to different degrees, rather than making enemies invulnerable to all but one item. That way, it'll actually feel different to get items out of order.

The beauty of nonlinear dungeons is they add variety to the way you complete each dungeon.

With linear dungeons, for each dungeon you WILL have certain items in your inventory, and those will be needed to complete it. The result is a series of predictable and boring dungeons which after the third playthrough or so you could probably do half-asleep.

But imagine if Nintendo designs the dungeons so that you could choose the order. Depending on which dungeons you did prior and which tools you obtained from them, you could enter a new dungeon with a different set of items each time. And whichever items you have can determine how you can solve certain puzzles and obstacles or defeat certain enemies. It'll also bring varying levels of difficulty, as well as solve the issue of single-solution puzzles.

For example, let's say you choose NOT to do the dungeon where the bow is. you will then have to try to go through the other dungeons without a bow, forcing you to improvise and try to use the weapons you DO have in new, creative ways.

Ocarina of Time did this, mostly. Majora's Mask did it a little, and LoZ did it alot, but the fact that you can head to the Ice Cavern to get the Biggoron's Sword before the Forest Temple is ingenious, and the fact that you can get to the Shadow Temple and sort of the Spirit Temple after 3 medallions is also ingenious. However, OoT did not know how to balance difficulty. The Spirit Temple and Shadow Temple are really not any harder than the previous three temples (including the Water Temple) so the non-linear path is made near-pointless.

What the Zelda series needs is something like the Fable series...content that can only be accessed by doing or not doing specific things. For example, let's imagine OoT went more like this: by going to the Fire Temple first, the Forest Temple is made much easier. However, the Fire Temple would be harder than the Forest Temple in the first place. You know, how you go through the game changes how you play it, with only a few restrictions.