Talk:Overworld

Very Nice

Well, I must say that I'm impressed. I have been in the process of writing an article on the very same topic (as you can see, or will be able to shortly) for a couple of days. I'll integrate my material into this page, if you don't mind. One of the things that I didn't think of that I'm glad you put in was a section regarding the music generally heard when wandering overworld areas. Kudos.cocoapropo 03:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The issue with the article (and why it was previously deleted) is due to a lack of sources, which is annoying, to say the least. I know they're out there, we just have to find them. :) David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DELETE?!

Though an article with similar content was deleted once, for reasons I know not, because I never read it, a fair amount of work was put into this article by those who authored it, because, though few people may actually care or find the subject matter relevant, who cares about video games anyway? Are they really important in the first place? If the answer is no, then why don't we just delete ALL video game-related articles? If the answer is yes, or if it is determined that video games are such a large part of popular culture that they should be included in an encyclopaedia such as this one, then terms that are felt by some to not be adequately defined in a dictionary or other such place, and/or to sufficiently define them for anyone who may not have a general idea of what they are, should be perfectly legitimate subject matter. If anyone disagrees with these ideas, give me a good reason that this article should be deleted—don't just tell me that one or two people already know what an overworld is, and that there's a definition elsewhere, and that this article isn't necessary or worthwhile. That's a ridiculous excuse to do anything. If I went to the wiktionary and decided that the definition contained therein was crap, I wouldn't delete it just because I think it's unnecessary or irrelevant. If you still disagree, you tell me why. You justify your answer. Beyond that, if you feel this article could use some redoing, then do something about it. Add sources. Give more information. But the information already contained in this article is relevant, and while it is lacking sources in several places, all information is verifiable, and in the format of an encyclopaedia, in that it gives a definition and a diambiguation of different types of overworlds.cocoapropo 01:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt this will get AfD'd again right now. But we do need to find more sources. I suggest we condense our info for the moment; make an overview section, describing the history of the overworld, then the music. The music section should be the easiest part. Then we need to add more sources. I don't care if you just add a url, I'll properly format it later, just find refs. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We can find some references, but I think the article addresses what it needs to; we just need to find references for the source material we do have, and I don't mind doing a lot of that work. I think if we do much condensing, we'll just be sinking ourselves.cocoapropo 01:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A good place to look (you'll have to do some sifting) is through the reviews, articles, and features of IGN. here's some random results David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out, too, for those of you against this article, that some of the material herefrom has been used to help answer a question. The site is http://www.answers.com/topic/overworld. So, for those of you still having trouble understanding why there is an article on this topic, try helping improve it instead of tearing it to pieces. Furthermore, if you can find sources to disprove the things listed in the article, the authors would be more than happy to change them. Please use this opportunity to discuss specific discrepancies and improve the article; apparently, there is a demand for such an article. Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks.cocoapropo 00:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That answers.com page is actually the old Overworld article that got deleted. Answers.com lifts practically all its articles from Wikipedia. Miremare 00:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I was wondering about that. I remember seeing the "deleted" version of the overworld page last year, and was curious as to what happened (since there are no entries for 'this' page before September 11). Thanks for the info!69.252.131.40 10:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Home level Merger

The Home level article appears to be nothing but a restatement of the fuller Overworld article. I suggest merging the two through insertion of the roguelike discussion (paragraphs 1 + 2) from "Home level" into "Overworld" where appropriate. The remainder of "Home level" represents content overlap. D. Brodale 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Home Level is talking about a town where there are no enemies. Overworld often has enemies. I don't really see the connection. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a weak distinction, as an overworld (as discussed here) may or may not include enemy encounters from the way it is defined in the article's preamble. Further discussion within relative to platform games also argues against such an interpretation. "Home levels" are merely limited/circumscribed overworlds. To take the example of Larn, even though the home level is a town, it connects to multiple dungeons, which would seem to satisfy the definition of "overworld". That encounters don't take place in that town is immaterial. Another example from the same genre would be Angband, again with a simple overworld setting of a single town. In that case, however, aggressive encounters can and do take place. I don't see how the Home level article does nothing but describe a particular class of overworld. D. Brodale 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case, the Home Level article could easily be merged (modified as necessary) to form another section of this article. If someone can figure out how to do it (adding a redirect for Home Level as necessary), go ahead and modify this article to include a Home Level section and nominate the appropriate article for deletion.cocoapropo 00:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on...

This article implies several times that The Legend of Zelda was the first video game to ever feature an overworld. That is, it's saying Zelda was the first game to feature a bird's-eye view of the game world with a character moving freely in different directions. That's really not true. Zelda may have been one of the first video games to feature a really large overworld map with lots of connected towns and dungeons, but the old Atari game, Adventure, and its "sequels", the Swordquest games, were truly the first video games to have a bird's-eye adventure perspective. The overworlds in these games were much smaller than in any Zelda game, but that was due to memory constraints at the time they were released. Zelda was not the first game to have an overworld, and other similar games aren't emulating Zelda just because they feature overworlds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.2.236 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 November 2007

If you check this, know that the authors of this article are well aware of Adventure and its sequels, and that's why the sentences are worded the way they are. On the other hand, if you don't feel that your mention is given fair treatment in the article as it stands, please make any changes you see fit, as long as it doesn't change what the article says in a major way.cocoapropo 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Final Fantasy IV JAP Airship.png

The image Image:Final Fantasy IV JAP Airship.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:GoldenSunOverworld.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Overworld in platformers

"the genre of platform games did not have overworlds (in the main sense) until 3D platformers appeared in the mid-1990s."

Let us distinguish "overworld" from a mere "world map" level selection by the richness of player interaction to be comparable (though possibly reduced) to the core gameplay. That clearly rules out SMB3 world maps as being an "overworld", while they contain more subtelty than a mere "level select" menu.

Even though, I'd like to point out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_of_the_Jungle (1992) where level selection requires exploration and platforming skills. It might not be the first one, but it certainly pre-dates introduction of 3D platformers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvainulg (talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a perfectly valid point. If you can find a way to word it, by all means, add/modify as you see fit. Thanks. cocoapropo (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture does not adequately illustrate the concept of an overworld

I think that is a horrible picture to use. It's not a birds eye view and if I didn't know what an overworld was it would confuse me horribly. Anyone else agree? 2602:306:251A:9479:8DB:8F6F:1563:6AD5 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded those images for this article. You are welcome to suggest or upload your own free images (including images from free and open source video games, like SuperTux and SuperTuxKart). I am also considering uploading an image from KQ (a game like the currently-mentioned-in-article Final Fantasy). RJaguar3 | u | t 03:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a difference between “hub world” and “overworld”?

Is there a difference between the term “hub world”^[1][2][3] and “overworld”^[4]?

This article only mentions the word “hub” once in the context of Super Mario 64’s overworld, which is described as a “hub-type overworld” in this article.

I’m asking this since I was in the process of creating the article Hub world. After an hour or two, I realized that Overworld is an article that already exists and it describes a very similar concept—perhaps too similar.

This article does say that some open worlds are explored in third-person spaces and that overworlds are areas that interconnects the game’s levels. That sounds like a hub world to me.

Is there an actual difference between the terms “hub world” and “overworld”? I always considered a hub world to be a big, open 3D space that can be explored where all (or most of) the levels can be accessed (examples: Super Mario 64, Dishonored, Spyro: Year of the Dragon, Dark Souls, and Banjo-Kazooie), whereas an overworld was usually a 2D map or area where different levels can be accessed (examples: Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario 3D Land, Super Mario 3D World, New Super Mario Bros. U, and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze).

However, this article, Overworld, makes it seem as though an overworld can be both 2D and 3D; both third-person and top-down; both huge and open and small and linear. Does this mean that there is absolutely no difference between the terms “hub world” and “open world”? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 19:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)