Open Hyrule   The Wind Waker featured the most open overworld of any Zelda game to date, yet it is arguably the most artificially linear entry in the series. While you have a boat, a sail, and some wind, that doesn't seem to be enough to be able to sail wherever you want early on in the game, and pushing the arbitrary boundaries of the invisible tunnel that funnels you towards your next destination prompts the King of Red Lions to stop dead and prompt you back in the direction of saving the world. Thankfully, the impending doom of Hyrule apparently becomes less serious as you progress through the game, as evidenced by the King allowing you to sail the seas at your leisure. A game that offered far less to do, but more freedom with which to do it, was the original Legend of Zelda for the NES. It was the game that pioneered non-linear adventuring - it literally dumped you in the middle of a world with little explanation of purpose or where you should go next. While you could wander off through one of the available exits, a lone, tempting cave beckoned you inside, at which point you were rewarded by a sword. This sword became your reason for adventuring - just hack 'n' slash until you found your way to a dungeon. As you uncovered larger, scarier beasts, and rarer, more powerful weapons, you became a walking powerhouse, and the epic world you found yourself lost in slowly became your playground. This feeling of growth within a gameworld split down two different paths - linearity and non-linearity. Both methods of game structure have their advantages and disadvantages. While the linearity of a series like Zelda enabled the games to tell tight, focused stories that levelled up at the same rate as you. Until you pushed the story, items and equipment needed to advance across the land were held out of reach, and your status as demi-god restricted until the final acts. Non-linear series like Grand Theft Auto and The Elder Scrolls enable you to grow via your own accord; for instance, in San Andreas and Oblivion, your main character is completely customisable, and upgradeable as you advance through your own stories and adventures. Oblivion goes a step further and literally throws you into the middle of a world where it is your own responsibility to make something of yourself, in the vein of the original Zelda. There are still similarities between these two series and the latest Zelda games. Grand Theft Auto focuses heavily on story, too, with cut-scenes portraying events, though unlike Zelda or Elder Scrolls, the protagonist has become heavily characterised as the series has evolved. Games from all three series have over-arching storylines that you work through, though the key difference is that in the non-linear games there's a separation of advancement and growth. All this said, there is a lot for the Zelda series to learn from the games it originally inspired. For instance, in an Elder Scrolls game, and to a lesser extent GTA, non-player characters (NPCs) respond to you in different ways - point a gun at someone in San Andreas and they might tremble with fear or shoot you with a shotgun, depending on whether they're an innocent old lady or the owner of a corrupt gunstore. Similarly in Oblivion, swinging a sword at someone, or shooting a bow and someone's horse, will land you in prison, while in Zelda no-one bats an eyelid if your sword swings harmlessly through someone's torso, or if you fire a medieval missile into Epona's face. Secrets and advice can be gained if someone likes you enough in Oblivion, but neither the player nor Link has any real effect on NPCs through conversation, rendering them both as dumb as each other.  A perfect example of non-linearity in a Zelda game is the Bomber's Notebook of Majora's Mask. With it, you recorded details about the resident's lives over the three-day period, and these NPC interactions were like side-quests. If a Zelda game were to incorporate this system without the three-day limit, it would play out a lot more like Oblivion. Wii hand