General Zelda Do You Like the Fact That Zelda Releases Aren't Annual?

[Justac00lguy]

So the so called "big" gaming series nowadays have annual releases of some kind, some may be a two year wait, but they're all still fairly regular releases with DLC to fill fill the gap in between. Now Zelda games are slightly different, they tend to wait awhile between their main console releases: MM - WW (three years) WW - TP (three years) TP - SS (five years) and so on. Of course we do have handheld titles to fill in the gap, but here I want to purely focus on the main titles.

Now I ask this question because I see some dissatisfaction with annual releases from time to time; two of the main examples I'm talking about are Assassins Creed and Call of Duty. I reference these because I too share some of the same views. Annual releases, while it pleases my appetite, it sometimes takes away the shine and grandeur of a big release. Sometimes it's a case of getting too much and you kind of get sick of the series in a way. There's also a problem with too much familiarity and the lack of new things being introduced. I think it's because of this that I somewhat like that we have to wait, it builds anticipation and allows for more precious time to be spent on the game.

Then again though there is a line and a 4 or 5 year wait is too much and in some cases I would like for a more consistent and quicker release. However what are your thoughts on the matter? Do you like the fact that Zelda isn't annual or would you actually like this to be a thing?

 

[Azure Sage]

The handheld titles are main titles too...

I don't really mind the wait. I would imagine making these games takes quite a lot of time and hard work. Zelda games tend to be more complex with all the different dungeons and puzzles. Plus they have the story to think about, even if the story isn't normally a main focal point of the games. I'd rather they take the time they need to make all of that the best they can instead of rushing to get one game out each year. We'd get more quality products that way.

 

[PalaeoJoe]

I think I remember reading something about Nintendo wanting to have the Games come out more frequently and this is a welcome idea to me. The thing is though that games releases as frequent as annually or biannually would cause the quality of Zelda games to plummet. This though was not what Nintendo was talking about, nor would they ever do it.

On a side note, I wish that more regularly release a new installment in one other their lesser released series like Metroid or Star Fox.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

I like what we have now. Annual releases work with games like Call of Duty, because there isn't a lot to really pay attention to. They model the weapons, create a story, then use the same basic ideas that were presented in all other CoD games. Zelda, on the other hand, has a very long development period, and it is evident with the overall quality of the games presented to us. They need to take the time to find a good engine; a good graphical style; new characters, enemies, locations, items, etc; a great, polished story; put together side quests that not only encourage people to look for hidden things in the game, but also increase the overall entertainment level and add more to do in the game. The wait is necessary and totally worth it.

 

[Farore's Chosen]

I don't mind the wait, you can always tell when something's been rushed to appease people, it doesn't come out as good as what came before, (unless they're tortinos pizza rolls or something. want those now!) gives you something to look forward to and Zelda games are worth the wait because they are almost always quality.

 

[r2d93]

Honestly, it depends. If the games come out yearly with the noticeable tradeoff of the games being less good, then I'd prefer them to take their time. As long as the games are good, I will be happy. If the games are still good even released yearly then hell yes I want them to come out more often

 

[Piet S.]

Here's how I see it, for example:
Cat 1.: COD & FIFA have annual releases, but are for 90% the same every year.
Cat 2.: The Zelda franchise doesn't have annual releases, but every game is really different.

That's why cat 1. games tend to s*ck and cat. 2 games are awesome most of the time!

 

[snakeoiltanker]

as far as console releases I dont mind waiting up to 3 or 4 years, I now have a 3DS so i get plenty of Zelda to keep my hunger satisfied. I feel that if Zelda were to become Annual, then it would get stale, the way things are now, I'm extremely excited for each console release, and its always worth the wait. So i feel Nintendo should keep doing what they do..... However, ONE Zelda title per system i do agree is not enough. if the console last 5 years, we should get at least two Zelda Titles out of it, even if the last title on that system is also ported to the new one al la Twilight Princess.

Call of duty was fun, but year after year.... i just cant stand playing the games anymore! Hell i got tired of God of War, and it wasnt even an EVERY YEAR thing! but yeah thats where i stand on this issue

 

[Mercedes]

It's a double-edged sword really, making a franchise an annual release. On the good side, you get a lot of a game you love! On the bad side, too much of a good thing can make it boring and less of a treat. So it really depends on the person, I think, whether you like it or not. Are you the type of person to have some great food and then not have it again for awhile, leaving it as a treat, or have it everyday because it's so good and eventually go off it? I have to say I am the latter. But I think a bit of both in the industry is good, and companies seem to be handling them fine now too so I have no qualms with it. They make a lot of money as well typically, which is always good for the Industry.

Regarding the OP's question, I'm indifferent in regards to it being done to Zelda, but it not being annual is probably for the best with Nintendo's franchises. Some of them have already stagnated a bit for me, that'd just happen even quicker if they were annual.

 

[RedLink]

I think COD will get better since they'll be putting 3 years behind every game now that they have an additional developer. For the first time in a long time, I'm looking forward to Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare.

So yearly releases are fine so long as the proper development time is put into each game. The problem with Nintendo is that they have, relatively speaking, a small team on each game. If they expanded their employee base and put multiple games in development, you could have a yearly Zelda/Mario release.

 

[onebizarrekai]

Yes, definitely. It gives people more time to talk about them and debate about stupid stuff.

Actually, the reason I'm glad the releases aren't annual is because the creators have more time to work on the game and make them awesome. Plus, it gives fans more time to buy the games before the next ones come out. It builds up the excitement for the game, in my opinion. Sometimes I wonder how certain people hate on a certain game (won't name people or games) the week they come out; I mean, you waited such a long time for them, and you instantly start looking at the negatives?

 

[Sir Quaffler]

What I would really like to happen is if they followed the model of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask with each system.

With Ocarina of Time you have the main focus on the central plot and central dungeons, with still plenty of side-content to keep you entertained (I have yet to catch that ever-elusive Hylian Loach!). But with Majora's Mask the main plot was pretty simple, but it was all the side content that bolstered the world-building.

I think this sort of thing can work. Put all the development into the main game and make it the best thing you can possibly make. But, when that's over with, while you've still got the relevant models and engine, create something more off-the-wall off to the side to go nuts with. It doesn't have to be a carbon-copy of Majora's Mask, in fact I would cry heresy if it was. But take the lessons from MM's development and attempt to create a side game that tells its own unique tale that isn't centered on saving Zelda.

So..... I guess my answer's semi-annually. I don't want the series to devolve to CoD or Madden status with yearly installments that are basically the same thing, but at the same time I really want to see some side stories that aren't necessarily about saving the world from evil (even though in MM you are quite literally saving the world from oblivion... but that's besides the point).

 

[Random Person]

Annual releases are done because the audience for said games expect changes that can be made within a year. This is why CoD and EA sports games have the reputation for not changing in regards to gameplay. Its hard to believe Zelda can be expected to release yearly without predefining everything way in advanced because they try to change things up. (Key word being try). Zelda fans expect changes that can't be made within a year so it'd be hard for Nintendo to do that without upsetting the fanbase with technology being the way it is.

 

[Salem]

Do remember when Valve said that they were gonna make regular DLCs for Half-Life 2.....?

I would be content if they released annual DLC for the game until it becomes too much and only then make a sequel.

 

[Dio]

I think a main console release. every year would be a bad thing, but every 3 years is a good time. With SS there was a 5 year wait after TP. Whilst a great game, it should not have taken that length of time to make.