Open world while still needing to go through the temples in a certain order. Various gadgets were required to progress, but crafty players often got around this. Pokemon would also be called "open world", but could you just walk up to the Elite 4 from the beginning? Nope, had to get them badges first.

There's "open to exploration" open world and "here's a giant map, go wild"(a la Fallout/Skyrim). I prefered a Zelda with more guidance. Even Wind Waker, arguably the most open world, still had a progression the game tried to keep you on.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah so today there’s more of a spectrum. Back in the 80s and 90s there were far fewer choices.

I get what you mean though, just wanted to point out it’s more complicated to judge older games by new standards. Eg. if Zelda were a new franchise it might just be a fully open world from the get go.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

How is saying it's not the same game mechanics "judging it by different standards"? That right there is the problem: this idea that everything modern is better. Not everything needs all the same features tacked on.