But where I feel they can and possibly will fuck up the most is game progressing. I'm afraid that they will keep us out of parts of the overworld until a later part of the game, in order to assure that we know where to go...
Well, that might just be what they end up doing; they seem pretty hesitant to even label this game as traditionally "open world" and they haven't really given us an idea of how the player will progress.
If they do end up doing what you've suggested...that would be pretty awesome imo.
I'm really not in the mood for incredibly lackluster/mediocre (ALBW and Wind Waker-esque) dungeon design in my big HD Zelda because a vocal minority of disillusioned enthusiast fans really, really want Zelda to be "Skyrim: Hyrule Addition".
3 or 4 linear (in terms of when you can access them) level designs that give the player 3 or 4 interesting new items while setting up the narrative elements and endowing players with the feelings of mystery, challenge, and discovery within the dungeons/temples/giant fish stomachs/sanctuaries/etc. (something that Ravio's item shop and the free-roaming initiative completely sapped away from ALBW's "dungeons for dummies" tier level design imo) wouldn't be a bad thing at all.
At that point I'll at least know that EAD3 is gonna design some pretty kick ass, complex, and inventive OoT/Stone Tower Temple/TP/SS-tier dungeons or dungeon-like areas once the game goes full-sand box.
As of right now I remain unconvinced that a fully open world sandbox design works with Zelda's traditional trademark Link + item > environment interplay thanks to ALBW and its goofy item shop.
I love how you suggest that "glorified sightseeing simulator" elements are contrary to Zelda's core mechanics, when Zelda's original design philosophy was literally to make a "miniature garden that players can put inside their drawer" (
Miyamoto)
.
Honesty Who cares?
What Miyamoto and his small 3rd gen team set out to do at the wonky (I'd say Zelda 1 is more of the series' developing "seed" rather than it's "roots") beginning of the series life doesn't' really interest me and has no real relevance to what the series has become post-ALTTP/pre-ALBW; EAD has been prioritizing Zelda's more unique action-adventure mechanics and dynamics (the complex and inventive interplay between Link, his items, and the environment) while building a clearer narrative focus for almost 17 years at this point.
I mean, you and people like you might have more of a point if the franchise had stayed a GTA-esque action-sandbox game for 20 or so years and then suddenly became SS...but that's not really the case.
It's kind of clear that they got over the whole "lets make something that's radically different from Mario!" initiative once they got around to making AoL. SS was just the inevitable "end point" of where they were going once they started building more interesting platformer-esque level designs filled with all kinds of puzzles, and obstacles/traps in ALTTP.
Edit:
the thing about SS's world is indeed that even the fields and areas you enter are tightly designed like a dungeon. You have to find your way through it much like in a Zelda dungeon, with puzzles and maze-like designs which are challenging and fun to play. A completely different design than an open world for sure. It's really nicely done in SS, I don't think it translates well to gameplay videos. SS was more designed around puzzle solving than the exploration aspect. There are still elements of exploration and discovery, but just in more confined areas.
(I agree with the sentiment of your post but...)
Hmmm...
:/
I'm pretty sure I was exploring/feeling my around the environment in SS when I was jumping over lava pits, climbing out of underground caverns, uncovering lost walk ways, time traveling, and discovering ancient robot mining facilities...why does exploration as a dynamic always have to be defined as running around a big circular "directionless" area in gaming enthusiast culture?
It's such a limiting and somewhat dismissive thing to do with the term imo.
