Opinion: Why Right Now is Perfect Timing for a Top Down Zelda 3DS Game

Yesterday I sparked a rather heated discussion on the merits

of 3D versus 2D Top-Down games, specifically Zelda games on a hand-held platform.

I felt that the top-down style was well suited for a mobile platform, while a

3D world makes more sense on a home console. However, what I failed to talk

about is why, truly, it’s the right time for a Top-Down Zelda game.

To understand this, one has to first understand the prospect

of top-down games in general. The Legend of Zelda on the NES was one of the

first in that style of gameplay, but we’ve actually seen recent top-down games

see a lot of commercial success.

Top-Down Games Tend to be More Profitable

The Minish Cap was likely more profitable than Skyward Sword with half the sales.

The last notable top-down game I can recall would be

Civilization V, though you could make an argument that most PC strategy games

tend to use this perspective (Diablo III, Starcraft 2, Age of Empires, etc.).

These games tend to sell very well, moving millions of copies upon every

release.

Now, in a sense you could say that the last Top-Down Zelda

game didn’t fair all that well in comparison to today’s games. The Minish Cap,

released in 2004 and directed by Capcom, only moved roughly 1.7 million units.

Before that, each of the Oracle games moved close to 2 million units.

If you compare that with the 3.6 million units Skyward Sword

moved, which is generally considered a letdown in terms of Nintendo’s

predictions, you can see how maybe those games just don’t make sense. Of

course, that’s not entirely true – at 3.6 million units Skyward Sword may have

actually made less money in terms of pure profit than The Minish Cap and the

Oracle games. Why? Because it took five years to make and a team featuring

hundreds of employees. Conversely, it was much cheaper to make the 3 aforementioned

games, and infinitely more profitable per sale.

If you want to go back and look at the last 2D Console game

(not counting FSA), it would be A Link to the Past – which moved 4.61 million

units on the SNES. That’s more than the 3.36 million units Majora’s Mask moved,

barely more than the 4.6 million units The Wind Waker moved, and more than the

3 million or so units Spirit Tracks sold.

In fact, since A Link to the Past, only Ocarina of Time,

Twilight Princess, and Phantom Hourglass have managed to sell more units, yet

all three of them, potentially, were less profitable due to the time and money

investments 2D Top-Down games tend not to need as much of.

Zelda 3DS is a solid looking experience so far (opinions not

withstanding), and as such it was not nearly as costly as a 3D experience. In

fact, based on sales figures alone, you could argue making a 3D experience on

the 3DS would actually be a much less profitable venture – it wouldn’t

necessarily create more sales than a cheaper top-down game, and it wouldn’t

necessarily sell so much more that it can justify the increased costs.

Of course, this is just looking at the business side and why

it just makes sense. So, take that for what you will, as in general many fans

don’t care what “makes sense” in terms of profit margins. We want what we want

and that’s all there is too it for some. So, moving on…

Top-Down Zelda Has Been Long Overdue

The fact is we haven’t seen a Top-Down Zelda adventure since

2004. That’s almost an entire decade without any top-down love outside of

releases over virtual consoles and such. The 3D folks have been catered to

heavily over those years. We got Twilight Princess in 2006, Phantom Hourglass

in 2007, Spirit Tracks in 2009, and Skyward Sword in 2011. Heck, you can argue

the remake of Ocarina of Time might count for many as well, also in 2011.

Notice the trend? No top-down Zelda experiences.

3D games are great – and sure I would not mind one on the

3DS – but the problem we are running into here is that there was an entire group

of top-down Zelda gamers that have been hopelessly abandoned. I also don’t

really want hear about how Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks were still true

to form – no they weren’t. They were an attempt at 3D Zelda games on a handheld

that had limited hardware. Of course, I argue they still look better than the experimentation

Pokémon Black and White did, but that’s a matter of tastes.

I am not against the idea of a 3D game, but to be honest we

have been getting 3D Zelda games non-stop, and we have another 3D remake in The

Wind Waker HD also hitting this year with the confirmation earlier this year of

the development of Zelda U – which we all know is going to be in a 3D world. We

get fairly regular releases compared to most of Nintendo’s non-Mario

franchises. It’s been a long time since we had top-down Zelda, and frankly

Nintendo can’t keep trying to please every fan out there. It hasn’t worked in

the past – it’s time they do their own thing. Speaking of pleasing fans…

Nintendo Thankfully Stopped Trying to Please Everyone

This is Jim Sterling. He is tired of fans whining too.

One thing Nintendo has been trying to do pretty much since

Ocarina of Time was invented is recreate the magic of that event. They have

been wanting to make a game that simply universally pleases every fan of the

franchise at large. The problem with that concept is it’s a nigh impossible task.

They can’t target everyone, and each of us has different aspects that we think

make a great Zelda game.

Zelda 3DS, in a top-down style, is going to please a

percentage of fans that enjoy that style. There are fans that actually prefer

it, believe it or not, and they have been mostly forgotten. Remember when

Nintendo decided to release the first New Super Mario Bros. since it had been

awhile since we had seen a true 2D side scrolling Mario game? The same is true

in this regard. It is not going to be “for everyone” despite the rating saying “E”.

It is, however, going to be for some fans that feel forgotten… and that’s a

good thing. Different strokes for different folks.

This could, inherently, mean good things for Zelda U as

well. If the 3DS is being tailored to please a certain crowd, Zelda U could be

tailored to serve a different Zelda fan altogether. I say this, because the

attempts to please everyone have had mixed reactions in general, and now they

can focus Zelda U on a different crowd that Zelda 3DS doesn’t target at all.

I think Nintendo fully expected a mix bag of reactions on

this one, but it also helped show that yes, there is a clear divide in the

Zelda fandom and you know what? There is nothing wrong with it. Nintendo seems

to be owning up to that divide and accepting it, rather than trying to make us

all get along. Bravo Nintendo.

Videogames Are Expensive to Make

This ties into a previous point about how this game is

cheaper to make than a 3D one. Still, it stands on its own for a few various

reasons. For starters, Zelda U is probably going to be Nintendo’s most

expensive venture. They will likely need all hands on deck if they plan to have

it out in the next two to three years. However, they didn’t want to forget

about the 3DS either, so they needed a game that was relatively a quick turn

around on a smaller budget.

The budget to create an experience like Monster Hunter 4 on

the 3DS is massive – it rivals the costs to make a full board console game. Not

only are 3DS games sold at a cheaper price ($40), some even argue that $40 is

too expensive.

So you have games where consumers expect a lower price, and

then you have to factor in that it’s pretty expensive to create that console

like experience on the go. Counted in that price naturally would be more time

to develop – where you would see a handheld Zelda game also take 4 to 5 years

to complete. That’s a long time to wait for a Zelda game.

Top-Down Zelda Games Are Not Inherently Worse than 3D

It’s a style choice, so let’s start right there. Some people

are going to prefer 3D over 2D and/or Top-Down regardless of how well the

story, gameplay, dungeons, or boss fights end up being. They simply don’t care –

for them 3D is just a better experience.

For others, outside of potentially some combat variety, they

tend not to see 3D as inherently being superior to a 2D Top-Down game. As an

example, A Link to the Past, for many fans, is held as a superior game over

every 3D offering. Yes, believe it or not, this is true. Yet, it’s a 2D game.

Again, style preferences in general can’t be altered on a personal level, but

it does show that there is nothing that truly makes the top-down styles any

less of a game.

You may not like it. You may hate the art style. You may

think its lame it’s in the same world as another game (or conversely love all

of this). However, none that really determines the quality of the experience.

3D, 2D, Top-Down, or side scrolling – it can all be rather fantastic. We will

all have our personal style choices, but the fact remains that all of it can

produce a fun, epic, and challenging experience that feels every bit like the

Zelda we grew up with. If this particular game isn’t your cup of tea? That’s

okay, because chances are that one that is will likely be up next, and this

Zelda game won’t deter that fact. As in, it is better to exist than not to.

In the end, there are likely just as many reasons you could

argue a 3D Zelda game should be done. Off the top of my head, it could simply

be that we’ve never had a unique on the go console experience. We want to see

all that the 3DS can do. We want to maybe even see cross play with the Wii U

(which is still a possibility with Zelda U).

But in earnest, it’s time Nintendo remembers that they had a

split in the fan base between Ocarina of Time and any 2D Zelda game after, and it’s

time they remember the fans that they abandoned in the switch. Not everyone

likes what you do, and not everyone likes what I do. It doesn’t mean either

situation shouldn’t exist just because we would rather it be something else.

You will get the game you want. Some day. For now, let others have the game

they want. We all deserve it.