' Wrote:I know what you're trying to say, but I still stand by my point that thus far, every Zelda world has been unrecognizable.
From Ocarina of Time, to Majora's Mask, to Wind Waker, to Twilight Princess and now Skyward Sword. Not even one time I've felt that I've seen something before.
They were all unique experiences.
This may be an aftereffect of my having literally been born and raised on LoZ and Super Mario games. I've played (nearly) all of the Zelda games numerous times. I can pick out elements that remind me of other games and I can connect a lot of the design choices together across the Zelda universe. I'd probably make for a good Zelda theorist if I didn't hate that sort of "hobby".
Imo, there's nothing wrong with the way past Zelda games handled their worlds. The screen-by-screen overworld was probably a technical limitation (or just easier for the programmers) and it really didn't detract from the games at all. I'm just saying the way WW handled it was striking and completely different at the time. They probably could have done something similar with Skyward Sword, but the game focuses more on the land below than the sky.
' Wrote:How can it be overrated when the zelda fanbase generally disliked it?
That was actually directed at the four people who voted for it :p
' Wrote:My biggest problem with wind waker was the overworld. It felt like I spent most of the game sailing over a big empty ocean bored out of my skull backtracking from one tiny island to the next (they were spread out all over the place). The grid design just felt wrong. I had no drive to explore. Everything felt so stretched out and empty. Sure it was big but separating the overworld into clearly marked x/y grid coordinates with massive stretches of nothingness inbetween them is just bad design. And fast travel is annoying. The overworlds in other games where just covered with awesome stuff to find everywhere and there was no grid to tell you where things would be. Traveling was actually enjoyable.
Guess I'm the opposite. I felt a need to see what was in every square of the sea; that's just my need to complete things and make sure I'm not missing out. I don't think it would have made a difference at all to me whether the map was grid based or not, as long as there were things to explore. They tried to put something in every square, but I agree, either the overworld could have been smaller (for shorter distances) or they could have crammed in more things. I would have preferred the latter myself. Traveling back and forth didn't annoy me, probably because I guess I'm someone who can enjoy doing nothing, even if it's in a video game. Those are still valid complaints against the WW overworld (plenty of reviews have hit on that), but they just don't bother me all that much.