Greetings Mr. Malstrom
After just watch the GT’s review about The Legend of Zelda – Skyward
Sword, I simply have to write this, for maybe my worst fear about the
game has come true: Aonuma in fact removed the overworld.
Although I could see this coming I was also in someway hopeful (or in
deny) that it wasn’t really true. But sadly, it is.
The review makes it clear that the whole world bellow is just
accessible and connected through the sky area.
Now, what I was somewhat still expecting is for the world bellow to be
a land taken by monsters and left for Link to almost fully uncover it.
To we suddenly exit from a forest and find a desert ahead of us. And
to return to the sky when we see fit, with also from there having,
obviously, access to the lands we uncovered bellow, but more like a
shortcut.
How disappointing the confirmation that it’s not like this at all.
Here is the importance of the Zelda overworld to me: it is essential.
It’s the image of a land to adventure through.
You see, my first Zelda game was Ocarina of Time soon as it released.
I’m 28 old and prior to that time, I was never really interested in
playing A Link to the Past for my SNES. In fact, I barely even heard
about Zelda until Ocarina of Time.
But when I left the Kokiri Forest and saw for the first time that
overworld, I fell in love with it. It was one of the most magical
experiences I remember in a game till this date.
Everything seemed so big and compelling to explore. I walked through
every inch of the Hyrule Field in absolute wonder by that world and
what lies beyond my narrow reach as child Link.
Then came Wind Waker with that vast ocean. And although I did like the
setting, it was deceptive because there was almost nothing in it. Let
alone real peril.
Still, a sense of adventure could be felt. The idea was there and in
the beginning it did felt great to sail a many times larger Great Sea
than the Hyrule Field could ever be.
To see a little island in the distance getting bigger and bigger as
you approaches from it, was pretty memorable too.
But the best ‘visual’ realization of the overworld for me was yet to
come in Twilight Princess. Besides all the game’s flaws and tedium,
the place that was the overworld felt no less than epic. With
beautiful and vast landscapes almost as something from The Lord of the
Rings movies. And better yet, riding Epona. Sure this was the third
time the horse was used, but it was also the best time.
Despite all that, the same problem from Wind Waker carried over: there
was almost nothing inhabiting the land, no meaningful enemies and even
the cool Bokoblin riders were no more than few and posed no real
threat.
TP’s Hyrule Field felt gorgeous as it felt barren.
At some point between Wind Waker and Twilight Princess I suddenly
found myself finally playing the acclaimed A Link to the Past. Sure I
understood by then it being a very different Zelda experience and a
throwback to something I missed out at it’s time. And the overworld of
that game felt entirely different from the 3D ones, seemed much more
populated and hostile. Maybe above all else, it felt more free to
explore.
I liked that very much.
When more details of Skyward Sword began to be unveiled, as for
example by it having a different layout for the overworld and
dungeons, I thought that maybe it could result in something similar to
A Link to the Past in terms of overworld and this idea surprisingly
grew on me.
More than just not being the same style of overworld from the past
console Zeldas, I imagined a more cool one. Not the practically
removal of it!
If this keeps up, what’s next? A blank white space with doors directly
to the dungeons!?
The overworld is staple of the computer RPG. Zelda is a combination of arcade elements (e.g. combat) with the complexity of the computer RPG. (This is the definition that the Nintendo Fun Club used to describe Legend of Zelda and used the phrase: “The best of both worlds.”)
You liked that overworld, and you consider it essential to the value of the game. Many games like platformers do not have open worlds and do not allow you to explore (because of their tight platforming nature). But RPG games do.
The company that invented the computer RPG, Origin, once adopted the slogan: “We create worlds.” Ironically, before we began thinking in terms of genre like ‘RPG’ genre, people like Richard Garriott were thinking more about ‘how to create a living and breathing world’. Born in the late seventies, by the time the Ultima series ended, it had created the MMORPG (i.e. persistent world).
Nintendo lives in a different universe than you and I do. (Editor’s note: That is an understatement.) They do not see that Zelda is partially a child of the CRPG. But most importantly, Nintendo does not believe in the concept of ‘content’.
“What does Nintendo believe in?” asks that wily reader who constantly interrupts my blog posts.
Nintendo believes in the process, not the substance. The point is not to create a large, breathing world for you to explore in. The point is to create new processes and special effects involving the old content. This is why you’re using the Wii controller. And this is why the 3DS Zelda game will be the same crap but will use ‘stereoscopic vision’ to do ‘puzzles’. Ooohhhh. Color me excited.
But I know your appetite for a rich, large world. Even if Wind Waker or Twilight Princess seemed ‘watered down’, at least there was some sort of world. Now, there is no world. “Everything is a dungeon,” squeals the annoying Nintendo press agent.
When you buy a Zelda game, you have this expectation of value. You expect a large world. And this is how Zelda used to define itself before Aonuma became director.
I feel your pain, dude. I’m getting more and more emails from N64 era gamers distressed at Nintendo’s direction concerning their favorite franchises (Mario, Zelda, Smash Brothers etc.). This isn’t simply an issue of an 8-bit fan. Beneath its thick financial armor, there is cancer inside Nintendo. I think its what they define as “culture” or “philosophy” that is causing so many problems.
Due to your email, I watched the GT review. I was surprised to hear so much negativity. “But the score was good!” pipes the reader. Of course it was good. No one wants their site to be blown up by fans like that woman reviewer did when she reviewed Metroid: Other M.
And as fate had it, I peered down at the comments and this one caught my eye. It shares identical sentiments to you, emailer. Let us read it together. Ahem:
I don’t get it: Zelda games have been on a steady decline since “Link’s Awakening” on the original Gameboy, this review calls out a lot of what has been wrong with the series for YEARS, outright says that there aren’t any improvements in this game, and yet they still give it a 9.1? Whose feelings do they think they’re going to hurt?
I know a lot of commentators are posting in this vein, but I for one would have loved to have seen this score lower. I used to love the series for its expansive worlds and the sense of delight and wonder I received at exploration, and much of that died when I had to start retreading variants of the same areas repeatedly, then the rest died when Zelda games started forcing me to spend countless hours just getting to the next interesting area. I’ve since moved on to the Elder Scrolls series for that feeling of a cohesive world and the delight of finding hidden loot, but I’m still glad there are games like the Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword out there: to remind me why I don’t play them anymore.
So emailer, if you wish to have the feeling you hunger for with an expansive world, perhaps you should check out various computer RPGs. Aonuma Zelda will no longer have an overworld. I say let’s bring back the overworld and replace Aonuma. Nintendo is the only game company I know where mediocre directors get rewarded with lifetime positions.
Malstrom's Articles News 