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

[Spirit]

*ignores the debate*

It'd be nice for Nintendo to bring out a Zelda game at the same rate as Ubisoft knocks out Assassin's Creed. I'd say that I'd prefer Nintendo to take their time but much like the AC series, not much has changed since OoT and SS aside form the gimmick of the hardware. Ac suffers the same problem in that very little changes between the games, this makes me feel as if Nintendo could knock out zelda as fast as they wanted to, bearing in mind that the series as a whole can't tell a coherent story between installments either unlike the AC games which have no problems doing so, it seems sometimes as if Nintendo are making less of an effort with Zelda than Ubisoft are with AC.

So yeah.. nintendo could work harder, in my eyes though, they just like making each and every Zelda game something of an event to maximise sales.

 

[Castle]

This is what ticks me off about a lot of gamers is that they want their game and they want it yesterday and publishers pander to them by slave driving the developers to pump out an uninspired half baked watered down mess in half the time it would have taken them to produce a half decent game. STOP ENCOURAGING THEM!! This idea sounds great to a publisher, after all. They can dump out a game in half the time for full price if that's what so many gamers are willing to pay for. Nevermind the fact that players will still complain about it being "buggy" and "dull" and "unpolished" and stuff anyway... but the important thing is they'll still pay for it.

Nintendo is one of the few developers that still actually places an emphasis on quality in their games, for the most part. Creating a quality product takes time!! For cripes sakes have patience.

 

[RegalBryant]

Time =/= quality. Not enough time lowers the quality, for sure, but there is such a thing as too much time, as well. And increasing the amount of people on the project can cut time without cutting corners.

 

[Castle]

Time =/= quality. Not enough time lowers the quality, for sure, but there is such a thing as too much time, as well. And increasing the amount of people on the project can cut time without cutting corners.

For those who can afford it. And if anyone can afford it the "Big Three" publishers can. Just look at their track record. EA's in particular. Developers have become slaves to big corporate publishers because they have the money to support the bloated cost to develop for the technology video games run off of these days and the sizable armies it takes to push out a game in enough time, and for them the faster the better. EA has raped, pillaged and plundered the video games industry. They have driven off critically acclaimed developers, burned some of the finest studios to the ground, and driven everyone else like slaves. And that's no exaggeration. EA was put on the spot for immoral and unethical treatment of their development teams. Including extended hours without pay to meet ludacris deadlines. Deadlines that weren't even in danger of being missed, just weeks into development.

It is a shame that the demands of development do not permit developers to stand alone without financial backing. This has given corporate publishers way too much power and influence over the industry. If you cannot buy your time, then you have to devote to it. True for developers. True for gamers. That is, if they're interested in anything more than something that looks pretty but is barely functional.

This is what releasing a game in half the time takes. Bad for gamers. Bad for developers. Bad for business.

 

[Cfrock]

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City has a score of 95/100 on Metacritic and has sold over 17.5 million copies. It has won numerous awards and was the best selling game on the PS2 for a time (until overtaken by its successor, GTA: San Andreas). Vice City features a large, open city to explore, an enormous amount of weaponry and vehicles to find and use, a brilliant story with deep, well-written characters, rife with pathos and genuine humour and satirises an entire decade brilliantly. Vice City has gone on to become one of the iconic games of the 6th Generation, one of the most iconic games of all time, in fact, and Rockstar North developed the entire game in just 9 months.

My point here is that just because dev time is short it doesn't automatically mean a game will be bad. If the game is being made by talented, intelligent and hard-working people then it can end up being incredible despite a short development period. Nintendo is staffed by talented, intelligent and hard-working people. These people created the masterpiece that is Majora's Mask in just about one year.

Now, I'm not saying we should have a Zelda game every year and I'm not saying Nintendo are 'lazy' or anything like that but 5 years between console Zelda's is a very long time when we know they can make these games quicker than that. Those 5 years are a lot longer if you're one of the many people who didn't like Skyward Sword. Let me put it this way, between 2006-2011 we got Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks and Skyward Sword. All of these games divided opinion and some are held as examples of the worst games in the series by some people. Now let's look at 1998-2003 (the same length of time). Between those years we got Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages, Four Swords and The Wind Waker. Not only is that more Zelda titles but they are generally better received Zeldas too and they are, arguably, more experimental ones on top of that.

I don't know if I'd say Nintendo have to "work harder", I'm sure they are working very hard indeed, but I would like to see a return to the time when Zelda was somewhat more frequent. Lower development times do not mean the games will be of diminished quality. Nintendo have proven in the past that they can create gold in a short space of time, it would be nice if they would do so a little more often in my opinion.

 

[JuicieJ]

Quite honestly, I think it's even more important for Nintendo to take their time since they're developing for an HD console.

 

[Ventus]

Quite honestly, I think it's even more important for Nintendo to take their time since they're developing for an HD console.

Now, why do you think that is? Nintendo has proven themselves, I think, with games such as New Super Mario Bros U as well as Nintendo Land that they are proficient enough with the intricacies of HD visuals to make a decent game. Combine that with their track record of making Zelda games as decent as they so can afford (even if I may hate certain entries to their cores and call them broken and all other sorts of negative terms), and honestly there isn't much room for taking their time. I mean, it's not like Nintendo could press a switch and suddenyl send their project down a drain!

 

[JuicieJ]

Now, why do you think that is? Nintendo has proven themselves, I think, with games such as New Super Mario Bros U as well as Nintendo Land that they are proficient enough with the intricacies of HD visuals to make a decent game. Combine that with their track record of making Zelda games as decent as they so can afford (even if I may hate certain entries to their cores and call them broken and all other sorts of negative terms), and honestly there isn't much room for taking their time. I mean, it's not like Nintendo could press a switch and suddenyl send their project down a drain!

Nintendo's track record is taking more time with each next gen Zelda game lol.

 

[Tearbender]

well first they need to space things out. If they release every year or two, it starts getting stale. Plus it takes time to craft a game like Zelda. People here may think it doesn't, but it really does. Thinking of a story + villain may not take time, but sidequests, the puzzles, dungeon design, designing the world, choosing an art style does take time. Then comes actually making the game. That stuff takes a while to do, its not some short project like many of you think it really is.

 

[Castle]

If a developer is capable of maintaining a standard of quality with frequent releases, there is still the matter of setting each game in a series apart from each other while still maintaining that which the series is known for. Why do you think each new entry in the Zelda series is met with such criticism and acclaim? It's because each Zelda game is not like the last and Nintendo doesn't want it to be. Wind Waker drew criticism for its art style and open ocean. Skyward Sword draws criticism for its drawn in level design. Heck, Twilight Princess draws criticism for being too much like Ocarina of Time.

I think Nintendo is more or less constantly engaged in "developing" the next Zelda game. I think most of the time is spent just coming up with an idea. Which can sometimes be the hardest part of development. For instance, a great writer can put pen to paper and print an excellent story in a few weeks, but might take years just coming up with something to write. Nintendo can press out essentially the same Zelda game each year. Same look, same controls, same challenges, same items with a few bells and whistles here and there, same general story, same gameplay mechanics... but they don't. Or they can tack on a few features that don't necessarily fit. Maybe some tower defense minigame or watered down city building sim, but that just doesn't really fit with the nature of a Zelda game now does it?

Sure, if you possess the means to make a pretty, functioning product you still can't make it special without a lot of care and thought put into an original concept.

 

[Justac00lguy]

You obvious dont get what I said I just said do you think Nintendo could work harder.....And look I know Nintendo take their time but you do real7see that the whole time they are not 100% concentrating on Zelda right? Thatwhy think they could work harder maybe hire more staff to release Zelda At a more pleasable date maybe every 2-3 years!

 

[The Wanderer]

[steps into the middle of the room with hands held up]

I think most players would agree Nintendo (or any game developer) should not "rush" a game. By definition, "rushing" means ignoring details to reach the end faster. "Rushed" games have glaring flaws and often numerous technical bugs. I think what we need to be looking for are quick games, meaning developers leap in knowing what they're going to do from the start and do it without eating up too much time. If a game deserves one extra month, six months, or two years to work out kinks and flaws, it should get that extra time. Nobody likes to wait anxiously for a product, spend money on it, and then discover it is clearly an unfinished product. Like buying a candy bar somebody's already bitten into.

I think the issue is, as I've said or hinted at multiple times before, Nintendo's mindset. They don't need to be rushing games, but two years of Skyward Sword's five-year development period were said to be spent kicking around ideas rather than actually working on the game. On its own, that would be fine by me; if they need more time to solidify their new ideas, they should spend more time. Then Skyward Sword was released, and I loved it. Despite that, it once again split the fanbase apart, and it was clear Nintendo still overlooked so many areas even though they spent so much time in development.

My conclusion: If Nintendo is going to spend more time to work out all conceivable problems and iron out a universally-accepted awesome game, I'm fine with it. If Nintendo is going to spend more time just because they need it to squeeze in all their ideas, I have a problem.

Experimentation vs. improvement. I'm not just referring to Majora's Mask's different setting for the Zelda formula, I'm referring to changes to the formula itself. Nintendo can work on brand new ideas for Zelda all they like, but if they boil down to neat gimmicks that are used once and then tossed aside, those brand new ideas don't mean a whole lot (they're already talking about dropping Skyward Sword's deeply-developed motion controls!). Without slowing to build on what they've introduced, each of their games will bear inherent flaws and never be the "ideal" Zelda (again, "ideal" also meaning "universally-accepted"). It's a lot like baking, actually. In many recipes, you're supposed to slowly add new ingredients to the mix and stir them in, allowing them to blend together naturally. Or you could just dump in all the ingredients at once, stir them real good, put them in the oven, and see what happens. Some will love the unusual approach, but most will probably just tolerate it or even hate it. That's what throwing a bunch of new ideas into a Zelda game without bothering to elaborate on them is like. It's almost assuredly going to be better to add a few new ideas, perfect them, add in a few more new ideas, perfect those, and keep the process running that way.

All this is to say Nintendo shouldn't need to spend two years just kicking around huge new ideas. The wheel does not have to be reinvented to make the next Zelda game shine. I know a lot of people will misinterpret my statements as saying Zelda should just add more stuff and churn out meaningless sequels, but that's not what I'm saying. Remember my baking analogy. All the ingredients at once, or gradual mixing? A drastic experiment that you'll either love or hate, or a slow, smart build-up tailored to greatly please everyone at large?