Breath of the Wild Do You Think Nintendo Could Work Harder to Release Zelda at a More Pleasable Date?

[JuicieJ]

You're doing what they call...what's that again? False dichotomy? Yeah, that's it. Delaying a game does not mean it will be perfect; look at any Zelda game in existence and tell me that it couldn't use many touch ups here and there. Similarly, rushing a game out doesn't mean it'll be broken beyond belief. Sure, there are several games that say otherwise, but rushed = broken and delayed = perfect are two impossible situations that just aren't 100% true all of the time.

There's a much larger chance for a game to be properly polished if it's spent in development longer.

 

[Blu Ray]

What?!

I wouldn't call even my least favorite Zelda game "broken." Even the glitch-ridden ones aren't, as you're unlikely to run into the more egregious glitches unless you're looking for them. Dear Lord, Nintendo-made Zelda games are pretty consistently refined, and I'd challenge anyone who said otherwise.

You want to throw around the word broken? Skyrim, maybe, and that's a big maybe. But it's dead wrong for any Zelda title obviously excepting the CDi ones.



Why? Is 10 Zelda games in 12 years not enough? It's more than some franchises, and less than ones that have been tiresomely milked dry. Exactly how many Zelda games should Nintendo pump out?

Dude, about Zelda game being broken, It's all a matter of opinion. It's quite different from the older Zeldas, It isn't hard to picture how much It can disappoint people who really liked them and was hoping Nintendo would keep up with It.

I also have to agree with Ventus, Wii U will have at least 2 zeldas done in a shorter time. He isn't saying Nintendo should do that, he's saying Nintendo will do that. Wii U opens doors for both realistic and a even more beatiful cartoonish graphics, we have both Wii U game pad and the engine used on SS, I believe Nintendo have way too many options to just stick with one and release a single zelda game for this gen. Zelda Wii U being released at 2014 is also a hint there will be a second one, probably at the end of Wii U life cycle.

 

[Awesome]

I honestly have no issue with Nintendo taking there time on Zelda. We still get a Zelda game every couple of years if you count the handhelds. It seems that most people's complaints are that the gap between console releases is too long. I can understand why you think that, but I also think it's silly to rush a game just because you can. I think the wait between games makes new Zelda games feel epic where as a new Mario game you just think...oh new Mario...cool.

 

[Ventus]

Why? Is 10 Zelda games in 12 years not enough? It's more than some franchises, and less than ones that have been tiresomely milked dry. Exactly how many Zelda games should Nintendo pump out?

Why? Because in the grand scheme of things, an individual Zelda game won't give a player many hours these days. There are only so many variations one can do until the game tires itself out, that doesn't even factor in whether the player in question has a taste (or not) for the games. Considering each Zelda game is hit or miss among the fans [even if they are extremely similar to each other in their own rights], this is even more grounds for more Zelda in a shorter time span.

As for the question of how many, well...I couldn't answer that even if I wanted to. I'm not the speaker for the fanbase; I'll let them decide.

 

[JuicieJ]

Dude, about Zelda game being broken, It's all a matter of opinion. It's quite different from the older Zeldas, It isn't hard to picture how much It can disappoint people who really liked them and was hoping Nintendo would keep up with It.

A broken game is one that's ideas don't mesh and has design doesn't function properly. Sonic 2006 is a broken game. It's atrociously glitch-ridden, has beyond loose controls, and a plot that contradicts itself & has laughable dialogue. Skyward Sword has very few glitches, flawless controls, and a solid plot with great dialogue. It absolutely cannot be said that it's a broken game. It's a statement that defies all logic in every possible way.

Why? Because in the grand scheme of things, an individual Zelda game won't give a player many hours these days.

Console Zelda games typically have around 40 hours of total gameplay. Then there's Skyward Sword with double that amount. Exactly how is that not many hours?

 

[Ventus]

Console Zelda games typically have around 40 hours of total gameplay. Then there's Skyward Sword with double that amount. Exactly how is that not many hours?

40 hours might seem like a lot...if you're new to the game. Get this: over 400 hours can be spent in a single JRPG. That is ten times the amount of a typical console Zelda. I myself have spent around 500ish hours in the video game Star Ocean: Till the End of Time simply trying to 100% the game...which I never once did. The MMORPGs of today last people well over the 500 mark if they're particularly engrossed into the game, this includes perfecting their character and of course going on the endless Gear Grind. In Guild Wars 2 (an MMORPG), I don't even have a Level 40 character and I've spent beyond 200 hours in the game; there are 80 levels to progress your character. Heck, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, of the annualized franchise most Zelda fans hate, has given me over 363 hours of gameplay according to Steam. I could keep going, but my point is this; 40 hours is nothing.

We only get a console Zelda every so often. Handhelds can last quite a bit of time, but I'm not considering those at this time. I'm focusing on the console side. I don't know the specifics of the Wii U--the host platform for current console Zelda--but I do know the specifics of Zelda prior to the Wii U. They aren't very long adventures and they do not last me a long time at all. I'd assume the next console iteration will be some sprawling adventure of around 80 hours (Skyward didn't give me quite 80...that was a figure given by Nintendo for hype purposes), but I have my doubts. Regardless of if it DOES last 80 hours, it's still a short time and it'll still leave me craving for MORE.

 

[Blu Ray]

Console Zelda games typically have around 40 hours of total gameplay. Then there's Skyward Sword with double that amount. Exactly how is that not many hours?

WHAT? The first time I 100% Skyward Sword It took less than 35 hours, second time, about 20 I think. I have to agree with ya about the broken thing though.

Get this: Zelda's not a JRPG. WOW, WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT?!?1?

Most games in the industry are about as long as Zelda games are. Some are even shorter. There's nothing wrong with the length. It wouldn't hurt to have more, but you're acting like Zelda games are the length of Sonic Generations.

JRPG gets time consuming due not only to leveling, but huge amount of sidequests and farming, which is something Zelda already have (farming mostly on SS and not so much though), so yeah, It's very possible for a 100 hours+ Zelda game to exist. Anyway, I wouldn't mind this so much If Nintendo stopped promising 100 hours long game.

 

[Kirino]

You're doing what they call...what's that again? False dichotomy? Yeah, that's it. Delaying a game does not mean it will be perfect; look at any Zelda game in existence and tell me that it couldn't use many touch ups here and there. Similarly, rushing a game out doesn't mean it'll be broken beyond belief. Sure, there are several games that say otherwise, but rushed = broken and delayed = perfect are two impossible situations that just aren't 100% true all of the time.

Maybe not 100% of the time, but usually.

Pushing more Zelda games out in a shorter time frame wouldn't automatically hurt the games themselves. It isn't about how much time you have, it's what you do with the time that you DO have. Skyward Sword took five entire years, and I was NOT pleased with it. Hell, I'd be willing to call it broken. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Majora's Mask had ONLY one year of development and I'd call it a masterpiece...in fact I do. Zelda Wii U and any Wii U Zelda that follows it could be squeezed out in a shorter time span. Believe me on that.

Skyward Sword would have probably disappointed you even more if Nintendo didn't take the extra year to polish it. Also, of course Majora's Mask had such a short development time. It copied so much from OoT.

40 hours might seem like a lot...if you're new to the game. Get this: over 400 hours can be spent in a single JRPG. That is ten times the amount of a typical console Zelda. I myself have spent around 500ish hours in the video game Star Ocean: Till the End of Time simply trying to 100% the game...which I never once did. The MMORPGs of today last people well over the 500 mark if they're particularly engrossed into the game, this includes perfecting their character and of course going on the endless Gear Grind. In Guild Wars 2 (an MMORPG), I don't even have a Level 40 character and I've spent beyond 200 hours in the game; there are 80 levels to progress your character. Heck, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, of the annualized franchise most Zelda fans hate, has given me over 363 hours of gameplay according to Steam. I could keep going, but my point is this; 40 hours is nothing.

We only get a console Zelda every so often. Handhelds can last quite a bit of time, but I'm not considering those at this time. I'm focusing on the console side. I don't know the specifics of the Wii U--the host platform for current console Zelda--but I do know the specifics of Zelda prior to the Wii U. They aren't very long adventures and they do not last me a long time at all. I'd assume the next console iteration will be some sprawling adventure of around 80 hours (Skyward didn't give me quite 80...that was a figure given by Nintendo for hype purposes), but I have my doubts. Regardless of if it DOES last 80 hours, it's still a short time and it'll still leave me craving for MORE.

Games like CoD give you so many hours because of the multiplayer. If you didn't enjoy it much, it would probably only give you 40 hours. Zelda games can last ridiculously long if you're willing to replay the enough, just as CoD can last ridiculously long if you're willing to play multiplayer matches over and over again. Also, Zelda is an action-adventure game. JRPG's and MMO's tend to be far longer. Compared to most other action-adventure games, Zelda had a good length. 40 is what it takes me to complete TP's story. It takes me far longer for all sidequests. No Zelda game took me only 40 hours to complete. Just look at the plethora of sidequests in WW. All those, combined with the second quest, make the game far longer than 40 hours.

Also, what is with these people 100%ing games like TP in 40 hours? The time it takes the average player to beat TP's story is 48 hours. I don't see how getting 100% in 40 hours is possible unless you rush or speedrun.

 

[JuicieJ]

WHAT? The first time I 100% Skyward Sword It took less than 35 hours, second time, about 20 I think. I have to agree with ya about the broken thing though.

It must have taken you about 10-15 hours to 100% Twilight Princess and most other previous games, then. Took me close to 75 hours to 100% the game. Granted, I did play it rather casually to soak up the experience, but that goes with any other Zelda title I've played in the last 7 or 8 years, so...

JRPG gets time consuming due not only to leveling, but huge amount of sidequests and farming, which is something Zelda already have (farming mostly on SS and not so much though), so yeah, It's very possible for a 100 hours+ Zelda game to exist. Anyway, I wouldn't mind this so much If Nintendo stopped promising 100 hours long game.

There's... very little farming in Skyward Sword. The game did a great job with providing you with just the right amount of stuff you needed at the right time, and without force feeding it to you, to boot.

Anyway, the only Zelda that's ever had the time span of 100 hours thrown out prior to release was SS, and even that wasn't saying that's how long the game was. Miyamoto simply said that the game could last anywhere from 50 to 100 hours. From what I've gathered, that's a pretty accurate assessment. Most quick people finished in about 50 hours and most slow people finished in about 90 (100% obviously).

Also, what is with these people 100%ing games like TP in 40 hours? The time it takes the average player to beat TP's story is 48 hours. I don't see how getting 100% in 40 hours is possible unless you rush or speedrun.

40 hours is what it took me to 100% the game my first time around, and as far as I knew, that's how long it took most other people. It probably would have taken me longer had the game not been so freakishly easy.

 

[Ventus]

Games like CoD give you so many hours because of the multiplayer. If you didn't enjoy it much, it would probably only give you 40 hours. Zelda games can last ridiculously long if you're willing to replay the enough, just as CoD can last ridiculously long if you're willing to play multiplayer matches over and over again. Also, Zelda is an action-adventure game. JRPG's and MMO's tend to be far longer. Compared to most other action-adventure games, Zelda had a good length. 40 is what it takes me to complete TP's story. It takes me far longer for all sidequests. No Zelda game took me only 40 hours to complete. Just look at the plethora of sidequests in WW. All those, combined with the second quest, make the game far longer than 40 hours.

Also, what is with these people 100%ing games like TP in 40 hours? The time it takes the average player to beat TP's story is 48 hours. I don't see how getting 100% in 40 hours is possible unless you rush or speedrun.

It's not even the multiplayer; it's the fact that there are so many arbitrary things to do--fun things mind you--in CoD and most shooters similar to it that give it the length. The Zelda series (let's hope this is only prior to OoT) gives you a barebones approach to content, and it definitely shows. Once again, because of that, I believe the Wii U should push out more Zelda in a shorter time span. I can't believe that Nintendo will somehow muster up over 100 hours worth of pure content AND THEN putting different variations to runs, and so the only other ways for more hours is forcing myself to replay the same ol' same ol' (like what I did with OoT) or for Nintendo to make their gears have faster clock speeds so as to process more Zelda. I mean, sure, more Zelda isn't needed. The series is still alive and thriving, as is Nintendo. But it's possible, and it would do wonders for Ninty's loyal customers who ARE finished with any one Zelda game in such a short amount of time.

People 100%ing games like TP in 40 hours is due to games like TP (this includes SS and OoT) being so short. Your initial run through might take you X amount of hours, but when you see the game for what it is (read: get better at the game), there just isn't much to the world you were so engrossed in.

 

[Kirino]

It's not even the multiplayer; it's the fact that there are so many arbitrary things to do--fun things mind you--in CoD and most shooters similar to it that give it the length. The Zelda series (let's hope this is only prior to OoT) gives you a barebones approach to content, and it definitely shows. Once again, because of that, I believe the Wii U should push out more Zelda in a shorter time span. I can't believe that Nintendo will somehow muster up over 100 hours worth of pure content AND THEN putting different variations to runs, and so the only other ways for more hours is forcing myself to replay the same ol' same ol' (like what I did with OoT) or for Nintendo to make their gears have faster clock speeds so as to process more Zelda. I mean, sure, more Zelda isn't needed. The series is still alive and thriving, as is Nintendo. But it's possible, and it would do wonders for Ninty's loyal customers who ARE finished with any one Zelda game in such a short amount of time.

Zelda has tons of little secrets and easter eggs. Zelda has tons of things to do and explore. TP especially. There were so many secret chests, underground caves, hidden rooms, and secrets that very few people even know about. Zelda games almost always have more secrets and arbitrary things then CoD. Slicing chickens, throwing pumpkins, scaring people as a wolf, ect. That's saying alot, especially considering that TP is considered to be lacking in exploration. I have spent over 300 hours on TP and I still probably haven't discovered all the secrets. Not just small things, but big ones too, like a whole absolutely huge puzzle that is made up of many smaller puzzles devoted to finding the key to Ganon's treasure room.

People 100%ing games like TP in 40 hours is due to games like TP (this includes SS and OoT) being so short. Your initial run through might take you X amount of hours, but when you see the game for what it is (read: get better at the game), there just isn't much to the world you were so engrossed in.

If you're an expert, of course you'll finish quickly. Your first playthrough should be what counts with length, not subsequent playthrough where you already know everthing. Unless you rush, or are just really that amazing, I don't see how it's possible to finish a Zelda games so fast.

 

[Ventus]

Zelda has tons of little secrets and easter eggs. Zelda has tons of things to do and explore. TP especially. There were so many secret chests, underground caves, hidden rooms, and secrets that very few people even know about. Zelda games almost always have more secrets and arbitrary things then CoD. Slicing chickens, throwing pumpkins, scaring people as a wolf, ect. That's saying alot, especially considering that TP is considered to be lacking in exploration. I have spent over 300 hours on TP and I still probably haven't discovered all the secrets. Not just small things, but big ones too, like a whole absolutely huge puzzle that is made up of many smaller puzzles devoted to finding the key to Ganon's treasure room.

A few of those things (slicing the crap out of chickens and other animals, scaring the citizens of Hyrule etc) weren't quite what I was referring to...but I see your point.

If you're an expert, of course you'll finish quickly. Your first playthrough should be what counts with length, not subsequent playthrough where you already know everthing. Unless you rush, or are just really that amazing, I don't see how it's possible to finish a Zelda games so fast.

I'm not talking about myself here, but there are so many pros from game birth that can finish a Zelda game extremely fast. Not that 5 hour speedrun deal, of course, but ~40 hours for 100% isn't an unrealistic figure for modern Zelda. Everything is so streamlined, and there's very little to do by way of exploration and secrets (I'll mark TP out...I concede that it has quite a few secrets, even if they're meaningless in-game). And once again, that is why I believe Zelda Wii U should buck the trend and push out more Zelda in a shorter time span. Not two Zeldas per system (LoZ and AoL for NES, OoT and MM for N64, TWW and TP for GC, TP and SS for Wii...heck this bleeds into a few handhelds as well with ALttP and TMC for GBA, PH and ST for DS), but perhaps three or even four. There are many ways to get this accomplished with little to no quality lost, but people are content with it because not EVERYONE is a gamer willing to dedicate 200-odd hours to a game.

 

[Zorth]

I think Nintendo has done a perfectly fine job at releasing their games, 10 games in 12 years is not bad at all. I think it might seem like they are a slow company because there is a larger gap between their 3D game titles, but to me the handheld versions are just as much of a Zelda game as a 3D title is, there isn't that more content or story in a 3D title as one might think when compared to a handheld one. :bleh:

So no, I think Nintendo should take their time when working on their titles, rush it and you get parts that are either not polished, buggy and maybe just don't make sense (like the ending of KotOR II). Delaying a game with maybe a year or two is even perfectly fine by me, it means something went wrong and they need to fix it which is a lot better than to just launch a game with a game breaking bug or inconsistency in it. Zelda isn't the only game I play anyway so waiting a few years isn't really a problem since I have lots of other stuff to do, I even loose interest after a while but as launch comes closer I get more excited and when it launched the game turns out to be awesome which makes me thankful they didn't rush it.

:yes:

The MMORPGs of today last people well over the 500 mark if they're particularly engrossed into the game, this includes perfecting their character and of course going on the endless Gear Grind. In Guild Wars 2 (an MMORPG), I don't even have a Level 40 character and I've spent beyond 200 hours in the game; there are 80 levels to progress your character. Heck, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, of the annualized franchise most Z.

You can't really compare online games with single player ones, online games don't have any goal, they never end. The point is to play against other (with other) people and as long as there is people playing the game it'll never end. I have over 90 days played time on my main WoW character, over 47 days of multiplayer played across all CoD games. While in single player games like Zelda you'll eventually do everything after some time, the only way they can prolong this is to just broaden the amount of content, if they want to make the next Zelda last as long as say CoD then it's time for them to design some form of online play. Since they won't be doing this I never expect more than 20 hours of playtime for a Zelda game personally.

:xd:

 

[Wasteland Dream]

'Do you think Nintendo could work harder to release Zelda at a more pleasable date?' - Yes but they won't.

 

[Justac00lguy]

If they hadn't taken their time with the latest games, I have a strong feeling they wouldn't have been as good as they were. Take Twilight Princess, for example. That game was very half-baked, yes, but that was with that extra year of development. Think about how much of a failure it would have been had it not had that extra year. I'm pretty freakin' sure Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword also wouldn't have been as polished and ground-breaking as they were had they not been developed for 3 and 5 years.

Basically what I'm saying is Nintendo shouldn't rush out the games just to appease us. Companies that do that wind up presenting nothing but repetitive, same ol' same ol' games each year *ahem Activision* and never advance their series forward as a result. Let Nintendo take the time they need. Zelda's not a series to be rushed. No legendary AAA series like it is.

Then again Twilight Princess could have been made a lot quicker.....Which bring me back to the point I made