My Rant - Zelda in need of a change?

Originally posted here: Zelda Domain | Home
I just wanted to put it here to get a good discussion going. So, discuss!

Zelda In Need of Change?

It seems that in today's zelda community, outside of a few choice zelda veterans like TSA, people seem to avoid talking about something that's detering the game. Sure, people that are not Zelda fans have been pointing it out for years, yet we always argued back and defended the franchise we all love and adore. However, did those fan's flames warrant attention? After playing Twilight Princess and seeing the aftermath, I feel that they do.

Now don't get me wrong, I do feel Twilight Princess may in fact be the best Zelda game ever. Yet, it didn't do to me what Legend of Zelda did to me the first time I picked it up. It didn't make me get all estatic like when I finished OoT and cause me to replay the game for the next 4 years. In fact, since finally beating Twilight Princess 100% two months ago I have yet to touch the game again. Why? If this is truly the greatest Zelda game of all time, how come not even a year after its release I am already done with it? I still replay OoT once in awhile and I fire up Legend of Zelda every other day. So why not Twilight Princess?

I'll be honest, it's because I have been there and done that. Heck, I've been doing it for 20 years. A Link to the Past introduced a more set in stone path to beating the game and suddenly every game followed suite there after. You go to a dungeon, get a new item, use that item to beat the boss in the dungeon, get another new item to help you go to the next dungeon, and then you rinse and repeat for 10 hours till you face Ganon.

When was the last time a Zelda title really made you make a decision, or made you think freely to solve anything? The Zelda series started out way back in 1987 with the introduction of Legend of Zelda. In that game, you can do basically anything in it in whatever order you want. Want to go to dungeon three instead of dungeon one? Go for it. Sure, maybe you may have to stop and buy some arrows or maybe the blue candle, but you are not required to go to another dungeon before it. In fact, what is the first dungeon in our minds is based off of what dungeon is the closest and requires the least amount of items. Legend of Zelda did not give you fancy directions or really tell you where to go or how to do anything. It was a simple free world made for us to explore and figure out the story and everything for ourselves. Sure, the Old Man popped up time to time to toss out a tip, but normally it was just random and put there in case you did happen to get lost. Basically, he was a very watered down form of Navi, only helping when you would be at the point of tossing your system out the window. Then, when you got the help, it seemed so obvious you wondered how you missed it. This continued even in the side scrolling Adventure of Link. Sure, you had to somewhat do certain dungeons before others, but it still was a free world. You could travel anywhere you wanted to and do other places before the ones closest to you.

I've argued till the cows come home with many fans about how I feel Zelda needed to be harder. Now that I think of it, it doesn't necessarily need to be harder. What it needs to do is stop limiting us. Allow us to figure it out for ourselves. Enough introductions to the game or some sort of guide telling you what to do or townsfolk guiding the path you take. Let us choose. What if in TP I want to go to the dungeon in the sky before the water temple? I mean really, just build a canon and bam, you could go there. Oh wait, the game doesn't allow you to do that until you do the order of events. I remember the cannon guy telling me earlier in the game he can repair cannons. As soon as I heard that all I wanted to do was find a darn cannon. Then it hit me, you can't do that yet. It's not like the cannon went anywhere, but the storyline and path was so preset you had no choice.

At this point, I will refer to part of TSA's rant from TheHylia:
"With each subsequent title, the exploration factor was cut down. Link's Awakening presented an even more linear fashion, blocking off where you could go more strictly. Ocarina of Time really constrained it even more, and the loading of "zones" eliminated some of the natural flow that was present in previous 2D games. The Wind Waker attempted to return to this type of exploration after you could sail and control the wind early on in the game, but the game promoted going in a suggested order rather than trying to sail around the ocean searching for new clues and locations; the in-game clues were too obvious and the assistance of a personal aid, the King of Red Lions, really spoon-fed gamers what to do in each new situation."

"The creators need to start the series over and begin anew. Establish a new mythology, and new Hyrule and everything in it, and a solid gameplay model and concept. Make the series grow up a bit for the modern gamer and audience, and give the game a bit more personality. We all know, Mr. Miyamoto that the player is supposed to define who Link is, how their own experience is unique with each new Zelda title. Newsflash: it isn't working anymore. We've already been there and done that for quite awhile now, so maybe it is time to try something new. Maybe it is time for voice acting, maybe it is time for a much more intense story. Maybe it's time for the series to get a little bit more mature."

Those are just small tidbits out of TSA's rant. The first goes over how Zelda slowly but surely got into the pattern it is in today. The second is basically his intial statement to "save" Zelda. Wait a second, I thought Twilight Princes was the highest rated Zelda Game across the board and it may be the game of the year of 2006? Given that information, why would Zelda need a restart? Simply put, because I don't want Zelda turning into another Final Fantasy. Sure, each one is virtually independent of the other, but it's the same darn formula over and over and over these days. This seems to happen with many games. One franchise that seems to get it right, and we love it all the more for it, is Mario, The plain old platforming mario games are always making huge strides. Look at Paper Mario. A great game, so how did they change it for the next one? A 3D type aspect which isn't a gimmick, it's nicely done and needed throughout the entire game. What about Super Mario Galaxy? Find me a Wii owner that isn't looking forward to that game and I will find you someone who is still poking fun at the title of the console.

Getting back to my point, like TSA said Zelda needs a drastic change. Sure, it's Zelda and just the name alone is going to carry this game for at least 20 more years. However, the Zelda fan base has grown up. Sure, there are still kids out there that play. However, I rarely if ever see any under thirteen people touch Zelda anymore. They're too wrapped up in Spongebob and the new TMNT to care about videogames. The wii is getting the older and the younger involved in gaming again, however, Zelda will always remain a niche franchise. Its fan base gets older and over time will still drag in new members no matter what. For that reason, Zelda won't die anytime in the forseeable future. However, can we just stay content with OoT rehashes forever? Sure, Phantom Hourglass attempts to show that new controls are the key. I am sorry folks, even if on the wii they do 1:1 sword motions (which if they do you will quickly find out how BAD you are with a sword, unless they dumb down the enemies more then they already have) it will not make the game feel fresh. I long for that feeling again. Twilight Princess thrives off the hype and solid OoT play style. I want that feeling I get when I go back and play Legend of Zelda and realize why this game was truly monumental in it's time.

So maybe TSA is right: It's time for a new start. Scratch all the old games and start the franchise over again. Forget anything previous to it. Keep the staple of Link, Zelda, Ganon and the triforce and move on. Call the land Hyrule, but don't use anything that was in the Hyrule of old. Start the franchise like it's brand new. Doesn't that change Zelda then? Sure it does, but you can still build off the roots. Have a more open world. Imagine, from the get go you can go anywhere you want. Any dungeon. You no longer are spoon fed where to go. There is voice acting and as you trudge along in the game, the more you do the more reactive link becomes. Like say you talk to some townsfolk and hear about these monsters ravaging from the east and an army marching from the north. They don't really know who you are, but then you turn around, head south and defeat a fabled boss. Then, you come back to town and your name is being whispered and suddenly Link's confidence rises as he gets more experience. Over time he becomes much more important and reactive to people and you start to develop a true relation. It's similar to leveling to a point like in AOL. The free world like in LOZ. Guess what, you just reinvented zelda while building off the roots. It's really that simple.

Then after 20 years of that, you can reinvent again. It's worked for movie series like 007. It's worked for games like Metroid, Mario, and Starfox. So, why can't it work for Zelda? As hard as it is to make such a sudden change seem acceptable and some gamers may be opposed, you may soon find shortly after completeing this totally different Zelda Adventure that you're amazed. Ask yourselves this, wouldn't a drastic change get you more interested in Zelda then say the normal trudging news every year about the next Zelda? ZOMG, ZELDA WII WILL BE AWESOME! Yes, maybe it will. However, if it just gives us a new control scheme with a carbon copy 20 year old formula I'll be less interested than if Zelda changed. Hey, if people don't take well too it then go back to an OoT rehash. You have something to fall back on Nintendo. It's time to take a chance.

Well said. I've had some of these thoughts myself, although they were always overshadowed by the many positive thoughts I had of TP.

I had two strong but very different feelings as I was playing TP: One was telling me that this was the best game I'd ever played, and another was telling me that I'd already seen it all before. OoT was the first Zelda game I played, and the entire experience was new and exciting. With TP, it sometimes felt like "Oh, the first big chest... this must be the map" or "I just got an item, let's see what part of the boss it works on". Perhaps what I was wishing for the most was less linearity and a greater sense of "exploration". Some of the places and events also showed very striking similarities to OoT.

The irony is that the things that make TP such a fantastic game (for me) are the very reasons I'm looking forward to change. Many elements in TP form the basis for new and exciting possibilities--TP just didn't develop them to their full potential.

Yes. (The rest of my post is copied and pasted from this thread)

Nintendo recently has become determined to make boss battles nothing more but simple puzzles that can be solved by using the dungeon item. This is a very bad move because it makes boss battles not only feel less epic, it makes them too predictable, and it's just not fun. I don't want a boss to make me wait for him to open up so I can attack it with the dungeon item, I want the boss to be trying to kill me!

Zant and Ganondorf are really the only exceptions in TP. Zant was completely unpredictable, and he was out to kill you! He wasn't trying to defend his weak point, forcing you to wait until an opening, he was out there, attacking you non-stop (until he tired out)! Then there was Ganondorf, while not as unpredictable or fast, he required you to use the hidden skills that you learned throughout the game. You never had to wait, there was always action! Now that is how a boss battle should be!

Of course, there is another MAJOR problem in the Zelda series; linearity. In this regard, TP is the lowest point the Zelda series has ever come to, in my opinion. There is no other Zelda game that is as linear as TP. The thing that scares me is that the Zelda series has been becoming more linear since the original. In Majora's Mask you had to complete all the dungeons in order (luckly, there were plenty of other non-linear points in the game that made up for this). In Wind Waker, it was the same deal. Then, of course, TP takes the series to a new level of linearity. In TP, now only did you have to complete all the dungeons in order, the dungeons themselves were linear. There was never a part where you had to make a coice of where to go because you never had more than one key at a time. It doesn't even stop there; the enviroments were pretty much straight, single paths to dungeons (Faron Woods, Death Mountain, Snowpeak Ruins).

I'm very nervous for the future of the Zelda series. Nintendo not only doesn't fix these flaws, but they don't even address them. Even worse, the critics do not anything to address this stuff, leaving Nintendo to believe that their franchise is going in the right direction. Right now, I don't expect Zelda Wii to be anything other than a side-story of Twilight Princess that continues the trend of a linear world and "boss battles" that should be classified as puzzle battles.

To go into more detail about the future of Zelda overworlds. . .
See this screenshots:

That is just a portion of Oblivion's overworld. And yes, you can go ANYWHERE that you can see. All those forests, all those mountains, everthing! Oh, and that screenshot only shows this part of the full overworld:


That should be Zelda-- a completely non-linear world with no limits! Twilight Princess' overworld isn't even 1/5 the size of Oblivion's. Unfortunalty, with Aonuma in charge of Zelda, I don't think we will ever see a Hyrule with endless possibilities. . .


EDIT: Also, the 'classic' Zelda story formula needs to be dropped. You know: Collect 3 artifacts, dramatic event, get Master Sword, collect more artifacts by request of sages, defeat Ganon. This not only gets stale after 4 games, but it makes the outcome of the came predictable before you even beat the first dungeon. In Twilight Princess, you could have guessed the whole plot by just knowing the formula that was used in ALttP, OoT, and WW. Doesn't Nintendo see that after 15 years, this whole plot is getting old?

Yeah, I never thought about the oblivion comparison. Very good points and I am just glad I am not alone.

I'd just like to say that I agree with pretty much everything that's been said here. Zelda has been losing its exploration aspect for a while now, and it's time they brought it back.

Nintendo recently has become determined to make boss battles nothing more but simple puzzles that can be solved by using the dungeon item.

Raise your hand if you think the 6th boss in TP is a joke.

I agree that some things in Zelda should change, but they are minimal and almost unimportant. There is absolutly nothing wrong with the core mechanics of Zelda. Zelda isnt Oblivion (thank goodness). Its designed to be more linear so it can have a more direct storyline and more specific puzzles, ect.

Every area in Zelda serves a purpose. If we want this to remain the way it is, wouldent a massive free-roaming world destroy this aspect? that would be like quantity over quality. I would certainly rather have a land full of surprises and secrets than a land that is simply huge and lacks a secret around every corner, or a hidden chest to find.

Boss battles were enjoyable in TP. Zant was just bliss in terms of flavour as a bad (crazy!) guy and in his strange, fresh attack methods. Other boss battles werent quite as flash, and some were even predictable, but enjoyable nonetheless. Some bosses needed a little more origionality or difficulty.

I feel that Zelda could do with a few changes, but not terribly big ones.

Originally Posted by Blue fire

I agree that some things in Zelda should change, but they are minimal and almost unimportant. There is absolutly nothing wrong with the core mechanics of Zelda. Zelda isnt Oblivion (thank goodness). Its designed to be more linear so it can have a more direct storyline and more specific puzzles, ect.

Oblivion is the LoZ of our time (in terms of non-linearity and exploration). Back when The Legend of Zelda first hit the NES, it was the first game to really give you absolute freedom. The game didn't force you to go anywhere; that was up to you! That's why the game is still enjoyable to this day because you don't have to beat it the same way everytime, you can do the first dungeon 3rd, and the 2nd dungeon first. Endless possibilities-- that is what made Zelda so revolutionary back in the day.

Every area in Zelda serves a purpose. If we want this to remain the way it is, wouldent a massive free-roaming world destroy this aspect?

That's why TP's overworld never has anything to do! Once you did what you were supposed to do in an area, there was nothing left to do esides look at the scenary. The Sacred Grove is the biggest example of this. Actually, any major landmark in TP is a perfect example of this.

With a massive overworld like Oblivion, you'll be constantly falling apon new areas that you've never seen before because the game never forces you do go there like in recent Zelda games. That's why non-linear overworlds are so important-- they add so much replay value.

that would be like quantity over quality. I would certainly rather have a land full of surprises and secrets than a land that is simply huge and lacks a secret around every corner, or a hidden chest to find.

Why can't Zelda overworlds have both; quantity and quality? That is what Oblivion, World of Wacraft, and Grand Theft Auto have. Why do we have to choose between having a massive overworld with nothing to do and a small overworld with more to do?

Originally Posted by Blue fire

I agree that some things in Zelda should change, but they are minimal and almost unimportant. There is absolutly nothing wrong with the core mechanics of Zelda. Zelda isnt Oblivion (thank goodness). Its designed to be more linear so it can have a more direct storyline and more specific puzzles, ect.

Every area in Zelda serves a purpose. If we want this to remain the way it is, wouldent a massive free-roaming world destroy this aspect? that would be like quantity over quality. I would certainly rather have a land full of surprises and secrets than a land that is simply huge and lacks a secret around every corner, or a hidden chest to find.

Boss battles were enjoyable in TP. Zant was just bliss in terms of flavour as a bad (crazy!) guy and in his strange, fresh attack methods. Other boss battles werent quite as flash, and some were even predictable, but enjoyable nonetheless. Some bosses needed a little more origionality or difficulty.

I feel that Zelda could do with a few changes, but not terribly big ones.

Nothing wrong with the core mechanics? I guess if you truly enjoy the same thing for 20 years it's all good.

"Its designed to be more linear so it can have a more direct storyline and more specific puzzles, ect."

Linear has nothing to do with the storyline or the puzzles. Linear is about the game restricting you to only one path. Spoon feeding you what to do and where to go. Zelda has been doing that for a long while now. It does not destroy what Zelda is by doing my suggestion. In fact, it builds DIRECTLY off of what made Zelda so great to begin with: None linear exploration with puzzles that are not spoon fed how to do. Use the pattern on the ground for everytime you had to use the win boomerwrang. I never once had to think about it or figure it out. Just look at the ground. Unfrotunatly, most of hte puzzles are just like that which begs the question "why the hell is the puzzle even there if your going to just tell me how to solve it anyways?

"I would certainly rather have a land full of surprises and secrets than a land that is simply huge and lacks a secret around every corner, or a hidden chest to find."

First off, a land that is "huge" would have MORE secrets around every corner a and MORE hidden things to find like chests. So quatenty over quality? No, in it's current state the small mostly linear world of zelda is not "quality". There is NOT new suprises around every corner. Just some enimies and passage ways that contain nothing new. Is there a chest every once in awhile? Sure, but it's not like it's really hidden or that hard to find.

"Boss battles were enjoyable in TP. Zant was just bliss in terms of flavour as a bad (crazy!) guy and in his strange, fresh attack methods. Other boss battles werent quite as flash, and some were even predictable, but enjoyable nonetheless. Some bosses needed a little more origionality or difficulty."

My point of my rant was not to say Zelda, and it's boss battles, were not enjoyable. Like I said TP may be the best Zelda of all time. What I was calling for is not spoon fed battles. I mean, you get a new item and bassically as soon as you see the boss and the cutscene, it's blatently obvious how you beat the boss. You don't need to figure anything out. The boss's rarely touch you.

Now sure, the Zant battle was "interesting" and had a epic feel to it, but I shouldn't have to wait until that point of the game to get that feeling. And, it wasn't even hard. I think back on it, the fight was "fun", but I never got hurt and it was just as easy as the rest of the boss fights in the game.

Now going back to my whole reasont o make the game linear, Myiamoto said in his keynote speech that when he made the original LOZ, Nintendo told him it would not be a success because it's making the gamer figure out too much on his own. Yet, he released it anyways and it became one of the most loved titles on the NES and virtually a instant classic. He said he had faith in gamers.

Guess whatm LOZ was FOUNDED on orginality and none linear play. Thats what seperated Zelda from all the other games of it's type. When it went more linear, thats when othre parts of nintendo got involved. Notice how, now that it's linear, we get a new zelda title every other year? Becuase, linear just made it that much easier to pump out none original titles and we eat them up because hey, it's Zelda.

...There are a lot of articles and discussions online discussing what people would like to see in future Zelda games. While many of the ideas are controversial among the fan base (voice acting, for instance) one area of improvement that almost always comes up and that's almost unanimously supported (from what I've seen) is less linearity and more exploration in the overworld.

I'm thinking of what the reaction has been to past games. Most people liked OoT. The complaints of MM were centered around the departure from traditional elements and the numerous sidequests, while the complaints of WW were centered around the graphical style and the relatively empty sea (not that I have a problem with these myself). Changes to future games were made in response to these gamer criticisms. But TP is a strongly traditional Zelda game, with the graphics, gameplay and characters that many people were demanding. Wouldn't that make the criticisms of linearity stand out that much more?

What is the chance that folks at Nintendo would be reading discussions like this? Aonuma said, for instance, that Midna's inclusion in future games would depend on fan demand. If a large percentage of fans would like less linearity, wouldn't that at some point reach the ears of the Zelda team?

Thats the idea train. Believe it or not, but nintendo has people that go around and browse random site related to a franchise to get better feedback on the zelda series. The fans virtually forced TP to happen.

It's good that Aonuma is listening to fans, but I think he should, for once, go off and do his own thing. Twilight Princess is, in my opinion, nothing more than a way to please the OoT fans, and I don't think that it even did a good job of that. We shouldn't have to plead for a non-linear Zelda game with a massive overworld, and a new plot; that should just be common sense to Aonuma as a requirement for the series. It seems that he thinks that he can just continue to live off of the success of Ocarina of Time, but it is starting to become more clear that we want something new.

I really, really want Miyamoto to come back to the Zelda series as director, because when he was in charge, Zelda was about exploring, non-linearilty, and trying new things. With the exception of Majora's Mask, Aonuma has only tried to re-create the Ocarina of Time experience which is why people are so sick of OoT now; We (for the most part) want something new!

Well basically we need a fusion of Metroid Prime and Zelda. Those who played Metroid Prime know what I'm talking about. A GIGANTIC free world where you got almost no pointers and you're free to explore everything. Finding a key item in the last hours of the game in the area in which you started in a place which you couldn't reach before because you missed a piece of equipment is a common thing in Metroid Prime. The feeling of freedom is just astonishing. Mix that with the eternal loneliness of the Metroid universe where the whole story is told with ancient inscriptions of a long lost civilization and you got a truly epic game.

Now I'm not telling that Zelda should be so lonely. But the feeling of freedom is very much needed. Although I also agree that it needs to be more difficult. Heck make it 10 enemies in a dungeon but make me fight one for 15 minute and die 5 times on him! It's still better then hacking down 5 million monsters of only 2% get to actually hit me...

EDIT: Heck great... Sorry my browser ****ed up. <.< Didn't meant to double post.

Very well said. I agree with evything you said. And also I am not excited for SUper mario galaxy, seriously.

Mario Galaxy looks like another Wii remote show off. But the graphics might bring a bright like to the Wii since most of the other games sucked totally in terms of graphics. Mario Galaxy looks decent.

Nathan I couldn't agree with you more. I was dissapointed with TP. Don't get me wrong I still liked it but it definitly was dissapointing. To tell the truth I like WW the best just because it was so different. There was a feeling of freedom in that game. I loved the sailing and all of the islands, I loved the characters, I loved the artwork. But it wasn't free enough for me. TP was even more restrictive.

The freedom you talk about is great. Being able to pick where to go first and all that is cool. But I wan't even more. I wan't to be able to chose my destiny. I wan't to be able to choose weather I wan't to be evil or good. In my opinion it should be more like KOTOR, not a carbon copy of KOTOR just similer in that one aspect of good or evil. I think it would be sweet to be able to choose weather you fight against the evil army or the good army. I think you should be able to see Ganon's side of the story and decide for yourself weather you wan't to help or defeat hyrule. I think you should be able to join the good side or dark side at any point in the game depending on various things you find out through the game.

Think of how much replay value that would give the game. There would be so many ways to play through it. In my opinion that would be a game to remember.

Edit: I'm tired of all the timeline people arguing over which one is right. With every new zelda game the timelines are thrown out of whack. There is no official timeline and there probably never will be. So in my opinion people should just stop worrying about the timelines.

I don't like the idea of choosing your own destiny thing. That would just ruin the time line.

I don;t think in any Zelda title they go into it wondering how it effects the timeline Twilight King. Frankly, I don't think nintendo CARES at ALL about the timeline.

As for the destiny choosing and a more freeworld, a better game example of that is Fable, however that game was rather short.

Nothing wrong with the core mechanics? I guess if you truly enjoy the same thing for 20 years it's all good.

Its hardly been the same thing for twenty years. I admit that it hasnt changed significantly, however.

Linear has nothing to do with the storyline or the puzzles. Linear is about the game restricting you to only one path. Spoon feeding you what to do and where to go. Zelda has been doing that for a long while now. It does not destroy what Zelda is by doing my suggestion. In fact, it builds DIRECTLY off of what made Zelda so great to begin with: None linear exploration with puzzles that are not spoon fed how to do. Use the pattern on the ground for everytime you had to use the win boomerwrang. I never once had to think about it or figure it out. Just look at the ground. Unfrotunatly, most of hte puzzles are just like that which begs the question "why the hell is the puzzle even there if your going to just tell me how to solve it anyways?

I would hardly call Twilight Princess (as an example) spoonfeeding in the least. The early dungeons displayed more of this, yet later in the game this aspect is almost totally removed. The city in the Sky was great in the sense that it felt huge and seemed to lack direction, but all the time there was a sort of invisible hand guiding you. I dont consider this to be truly linear, or noticably linear.

First off, a land that is "huge" would have MORE secrets around every corner a and MORE hidden things to find like chests. So quatenty over quality? No, in it's current state the small mostly linear world of zelda is not "quality". There is NOT new suprises around every corner. Just some enimies and passage ways that contain nothing new. Is there a chest every once in awhile? Sure, but it's not like it's really hidden or that hard to find.

Maybe you just couldnt find all of the hidden chests, because I thought there were a few real goodies, especially in Hyrule field. In saying that, chests were a more common occurance in Twilight Princess, there were many, even just in corners containing a twenty rupee, ect. There were more chests in general, but overall there were still many tucked away secret ones. Secrets were hardly lacking, they were abundant, especially due to the poe souls and golden bugs.

My point of my rant was not to say Zelda, and it's boss battles, were not enjoyable. Like I said TP may be the best Zelda of all time. What I was calling for is not spoon fed battles. I mean, you get a new item and bassically as soon as you see the boss and the cutscene, it's blatently obvious how you beat the boss. You don't need to figure anything out. The boss's rarely touch you.

I cant actually see how my views differ to much from you here. I guess I was simply less agrivated by the reccuring boss formula.

Originally Posted by Blue fire

Its hardly been the same thing for twenty years. I admit that it hasnt changed significantly, however.
I would hardly call Twilight Princess (as an example) spoonfeeding in the least. The early dungeons displayed more of this, yet later in the game this aspect is almost totally removed. The city in the Sky was great in the sense that it felt huge and seemed to lack direction, but all the time there was a sort of invisible hand guiding you. I dont consider this to be truly linear, or noticably linear.
Maybe you just couldnt find all of the hidden chests, because I thought there were a few real goodies, especially in Hyrule field. In saying that, chests were a more common occurance in Twilight Princess, there were many, even just in corners containing a twenty rupee, ect. There were more chests in general, but overall there were still many tucked away secret ones. Secrets were hardly lacking, they were abundant, especially due to the poe souls and golden bugs.
I cant actually see how my views differ to much from you here. I guess I was simply less agrivated by the reccuring boss formula.

The City in the sky? It was pretty spoon fed in what to do and where to go. Sure, it wasn't as blatently obvious where to go like earlier in the game, however, like you said there was this sort of invisible hand guideing you. F that, I don't want ANYTHING guideing me but my mind. Let me make a wrong turn or go into a room that will lead to my death. Make me have to use the brain is all I was asking.

Zelda is very much linear and it wasn't just talking about within the dungeons themselves. Can I got o city in the sky as soon as I know about the canon? No, because until I do other things that the game and story restrict you to, your not allowed to go.

Thats where the game is linear. No sense of exploration in the least bit. And yes, trust me, 1000+ hours later, I have discovered all I can in TP. The chests abundant in the land, sure, but they were not too hard to find.

Moving on, I am bassically just trying to get the game to drop the linear act and stop letting the story constrict you to one direct path. I mean seriously, to the game does it matter whether or not I go to the water temple before the forest? Does it change the storyline? No. But why can't I?

Because, I need to go to all these other places and get items and follow the story in order to go there. I am sick of being constricted.