General Zelda Is the Legend of Zelda Losing Steam?

[Curmudgeon]

I prefer to deal in copies sold for a few reasons. Mostly because it's the criterion that Nintendo (and most every other publicly traded company in the world) cares about the most. Secondly, it removes personal tastes and biases that are rife in threads like these. Companies don't want to innovate. It costs money, resource, and time - the investment of which does not guarantee success. What is certain? Turning out a derivative sequel of a popular games sells. The faster you come to terms with the fact that virtually everyone who sells you something is only going to cater to you enough to get your money, the less delusional you'll be about the world.

On to the original question. Zelda's sales numbers have stayed relatively stable (though in broader terms of total software sold across all platforms, it's a downward sloping paradigm).. OoT was one of the best selling games (~top 10) of its generation on any platform. Interestingly enough, TP can be considered an outright success, only being outdone by the most popular contemporary franchises. SS didn't do as well, though its performance was not abysmal (it sold as many copies as Left4Dead 2 and Arkham City on the 360). I was surprised to learn Phantom Hourglass moved 5 million units. Pretty solid. Is Zelda going to move the needle like GTA, CoD, or Halo? No. Has it proven a durable brand worthy of Nintendo's continued investment? Yes.

In millions sold, original system release
OoT: 7.6
MM: 3.36
OoA+OoS: ~1.9 each
WW: 4.6
TMC: 1.42
FSA: .81
TP: 6.74(Wii)+1.59(GC)
PH: 4.95
ST: 3.16
SS: 3.60

 

[ihateghirahim]

1. I forget who said COD can't be played on the wii, but it can and I find the controls vastly superior to the xbox and ps3, if no the graphics.

2. We need to realize Skyward Sword is a newer game, and it hasn't the time other games have had to sell. We need to put sales in perspective. SS is at the end of the wii, and it may suffer a bit from that. It also suffers from a lack of serious nintendo players in recent years. TP was at the launch of the wii, many got it alongside the console without actually being dedicated to the series. We should also note that Wind Waker was on the gamecube, nintendo's worst-selling console ever. Figures will be a little low as a result. When you take all of these factors into account, Skyward Sword is actually doing well, and it shows that Zelda is still popular and creative.

 

[Random Person]

Companies don't want to innovate.

Do you have a resource to back up this claim? Many companies do their best to innovate experiences. OoT itself was actually supposed to be more innovative than it was, but the limitations of the N64 kept it from doing so. Companies like Naughty Dog actually rewrite game engines and other codes in order to give their gamers a better experience, when access to typically used code is readily available and stereotypically used. Saying that companies' number 1 priority is sales is fine, but to say that they "do not want to innovate" is not backed up by the actions of certain successful companies that I've seen.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Do you have a resource to back up this claim? Many companies do their best to innovate experiences. OoT itself was actually supposed to be more innovative than it was, but the limitations of the N64 kept it from doing so. Companies like Naughty Dog actually rewrite game engines and other codes in order to give their gamers a better experience, when access to typically used code is readily available and stereotypically used. Saying that companies' number 1 priority is sales is fine, but to say that they "do not want to innovation" is not back up by the actions of certain successful companies.

Wanting to do something and realizing that one has to do something to stay competitive are two completely different things.

Addendum: I was speaking broadly about companies. I will concede that one is much more likely to find innovation in rapidly evolving industries such as electronics or software than, say, utensil manufacturing.

 

[JuicieJ]

Do you have a resource to back up this claim? Many companies do their best to innovate experiences. OoT itself was actually supposed to be more innovative than it was, but the limitations of the N64 kept it from doing so. Companies like Naughty Dog actually rewrite game engines and other codes in order to give their gamers a better experience, when access to typically used code is readily available and stereotypically used. Saying that companies' number 1 priority is sales is fine, but to say that they "do not want to innovate" is not backed up by the actions of certain successful companies that I've seen.

It's pretty rare to see much innovation in today's market. Most third party companies know that the mass market will buy simple and mindless games like Call of Duty, so that's the kind of games they make. 2011 had a couple games that completely defied that and innovated in some of the most mind-blowing ways possible (Portal 2 and Skyward Sword), but for the most part, it was still what we've come to expect. Still a great year for gaming, but not too far out of the box.

 

[Random Person]

Wanting to do something and realizing that one has to do something to stay competitive are two completely different things.

Addendum: I was speaking broadly about companies. I will concede that one is much more likely to find innovation in rapidly evolving industries such as electronics or software than, say, utensil manufacturing.

We can go back and forth all day with "I concluded that this company did/didn't want..." What I asked was, do you have a resource that backs up your claim? Because until definitive proof is presented, I am forced to believe otherwise based on company actions. Not saying that you're wrong, just that I believe otherwise based on the evidence presented.

 

[Curmudgeon]

We can go back and forth all day with "I concluded that this company did/didn't want..." What I asked was, do you have a resource that backs up your claim? Because until definitive proof is presented, I am forced to believe otherwise based on company actions. Not saying that you're wrong, just that I believe otherwise based on the evidence presented.

Rereading what I had originally written, I thought I had placed a word like 'big' or 'established' at the front of the 'Companies don't want to innovate' statement. I did not, and I can see where that would be confusing. The lifeblood of small companies is innovation. It does them no good to produce what everyone else does at a higher cost.

As amended, I stand by that statement (large companies don't want to innovate unless they have to). Large companies favor established revenue streams in favor of risky projects with low success rates. I don't feel that's a particularly controversial statement. It's the simple nature of risk vs reward.

 

[Castle]

You implied that you were giving up on the SERIES if it didn't impress you. Not playing a game anymore and not playing a series anymore are two completely different things.

No, you're absolutely right. ZeldaU is Nintendo's last chance to impress me. If it fails then I lose interest in the series. This is because I have more things to do in life than to pay such close attention to a leisure activity that has failed to meet my personal expectations on more than one subsequent occasion.

Given the time it takes for Nintendo to release Zelda games, that's a lot of time to devote. I know I am sure to hear of it when the next Zelda game comes out, but I won't be paying close attention in the meantime.

This is, of course, assuming ZeldaU does fail to impress me. But given the direction Nintendo has decided to take with it, I am hopeful that it will... then again, Skyward Sword looked set to impress me as well and, largely, it didn't.

 

[JuicieJ]

No, you're absolutely right. ZeldaU is Nintendo's last change to impress me. If it fails then I lose interest in the series. This is because I have more things to do in life than to pay such close attention to a leisure activity that has failed to meet my personal expectations on more than one subsequent occasion.

Given the time it takes for Nintendo to release Zelda games, that's a lot of time to devote. I know I am sure to hear of it when the next Zelda game comes out, but I won't be paying close attention in the meantime.

This is, of course, assuming ZeldaU does fail to impress me. But given the direction Nintendo has decided to take with it, I am hopeful that it will... then again, Skyward Sword looked set to impress me as well and, largely, it didn't.

I just don't see how Zelda hasn't impressed you as of late. Even the weakest Zelda games are great, and, well... the last three Zelda games aren't even near the weakest. Especially Skyward Sword.

 

[Ventus]

I just don't see how Zelda hasn't impressed you as of late. Even the weakest Zelda games are great, and, well... the last three Zelda games aren't even near the weakest. Especially Skyward Sword.

That's your opinion. You personally believe that the last three Zeldas aren't the weakest. Ask your next door neighbor and they may not share the same opinion; they do not think like you, heck, they might prefer things that are appalling in your mind, and thus they've reached the conclusion that Zelda is uninteresting. I know I have as of late - Skyward is plagued with joker problems (not joker-jester, but joker-coding); PH and ST have that mind-numbing stylus control as well as a horde of problems like slow gamespeed, Temple of Ocean King (thank God for Tower of Spirits), and the boat/train. All of that is merely my opinion. You don't have to subscribe to it, and I'm sure you are completely averse to it. Many people are, but that's okay. Zelda is interesting to some; to others, it is weaker than CoD.

 

[Random Person]

Rereading what I had originally written, I thought I had placed a word like 'big' or 'established' at the front of the 'Companies don't want to innovate' statement. I did not, and I can see where that would be confusing. The lifeblood of small companies is innovation. It does them no good to produce what everyone else does at a higher cost.

As amended, I stand by that statement (large companies don't want to innovate unless they have to). Large companies favor established revenue streams in favor of risky projects with low success rates. I don't feel that's a particularly controversial statement. It's the simple nature of risk vs reward.

Is there definitive proof? Is there a specific company that said "we don't like to innovate unless we have to." There are many things that people say are common sense, when in actual practice or study such things are false, this is why I asked for proof. I've seen people call things logic or logical falacies when in the actual study of logic proved them otherwise. Maybe you are correct, but company actions prove otherwise. Naughty Dog rewrote their own code because they wanted to, not because they had to. Rewriting was completely not necessary and it's a ridiculous amount of work, but Naughty Dog wanted their game to be their game. Nintendo has been trying for the longest time to innovate just for the sake of being different, despite the fact that innovation has bitten them in the behind in the past. Half Life and Portal (Valve) are completely different than anything anyone has created. If you approach me and say "those companies didn't want to do that, they had to." I'm going to ask "where is your proof?" Yes by being innovative some have gotten ahead, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to do it themselves.

 

[Castle]

Okay. Really, Rand? Do you really think a company is going to publicly state, "We don't like to innovate unless we have to." ?

Sometimes actions just speak for themselves.

 

[Ronin]

This shouldn't be about whether or not Zelda will impress in later years; either it will or it won't. That can't be stated any simpler. The big question is if the former glory of the series is beginning to wane. What will become of it, and how will the Wii U installment pick up traction for its continuation? Yeah, I'm just going to state ahead of time that it won't be for everybody, but that's fine. Zelda isn't the most important obligation in life; heck, it isn't even an obligation. There happen to be a lot of crucial things besides it that...well, have realistic consequences if left unattended.

Anyhow, to jump back on board with the topic, I'm chiefly anticipating the course that Zelda U will be taking later on. Common sense tells me that the likeliest route is to go by the most recent title's operations―which of course happens to be Skyward Sword. On this, surprisingly enough, I'm with JuicieJ in that Skyward Sword did help the series get back on track in several ways; some more than others, and others...not at all. But the point is SS reintroduced exploration on a spectacular scale and kept us busy practically every minute of the game. I don't recall ever feeling this hectic in a Zelda game, except maybe Majora's Mask, when the Moon is rapidly descending. It felt amazing to finally be able to run on foot, which is something I definitely want to see.

Even for its shortcomings―which are very scarce, overall, in my book―Skyward Sword has a long sequence of events which keep us busy for hours. I think this is what contents most fans, like the majority in this thread. It had a compelling storyline backed by loads of emotion and interesting characters interspersed throughout. Somehow this brings me back to Majora's Mask, albeit to a much lesser degree. The characters were faced with an upcoming calamity, whereas there were relatively small problems in SS. All the same the game made helping people out feel very worthwhile; a continuation of TP's poignant contributions, I might add.

For all the flak it receives, Skyward Sword is still a great game altogether. People only need to wait for it to age properly and...I don't know. However, I can't judge the DS titles since I've not ever played them, and don't know if I ever will. They do not seem like the types that will keep the ball rolling for this franchise, so I'm personally hoping that Zelda U isn't anything like them, but are more like TP or MM.

 

[Random Person]

Okay. Really, Rand? Do you really think a company is going to publicly state, "We don't like to innovate unless we have to." ?

Sometimes actions just speak for themselves.

Yes, like the action of innovating when you don't have to. I gave example of companies that innovated when they didn't have to. To assume they didn't want to is a pretty big assumption. The actions of these companies don't say "we don't want to innovate" that's why I was asking for more proof. From my understanding, just about anything involving public interactions with computers want to innovate. Some do it just because they can. Innovation, especially for people working with computer software, is a goal many companies strive for, and not just because they have to.

 

[Djinn]

Guys lets just try to keep the topic on topic.