| Jizz_Beard_thePirate said: Well, sure, Pandora's Tower was a lesser known title but so was Xenoblade and it had better VA than Pandora's tower. My point was that Nintendo's record isn't exactly smooth when it comes to VA. Yes, if it doesn't have VA, the sales are still fucked but it will be a less of a hit to their profits cause VA = extra work = extra money for something that may or may not have a good return on investment. And I doubt that putting VA in Zelda will attract anyone cause they would have to buy the wiiU first and there have been countless threads as to why people don't want to buy one regardless of what Nintendo does. Nintendo's best bet is to do what they have been doing which makes the fans happy and instead, leave something like VA to their next gen Zelda game. And again, its just the whole, is good enough for them good enough for us or do we want something better? And I am pretty sure the reason that people are complaining about Zelda's presentation is cause they don't like the cartoony look it has rather than it having VA. They prefer realism and other hurr durr stuff. Heck, some of the even want multiplayer in a Zelda game so catering to those people is like catering to people that really wont buy the franchise no matter what. Again, Capcom and other companies tried to do the same like trying to cater to the Cod crowd and look at what happened to RE. And heck, Zelda U is a fully open world game and I am sure once it gets released, provided the game is excellent, the industry will take notice no matter what. And VA isn't really the main thing that seperates those games from Zelda nor should Zelda try to compete with them in the wiiU by taking multiple risks like a big open world as well as VA. Leave the VA for the future and focus on gameplay for now. There is no reason to waste time and money on trying to implement VA when the sales at the end will be less anyway cause they are just putting in things that most fan's wont care about until they put it in and the result will be minimal gain. Anyway, I think we talked enough and we will probably keep on going back and forth in the matter but I dont see either of us going anywhere with this. Ironically, if you look at my first post, I said that I wouldn't mind having VA if Link doesn't talk loll but I wouldn't mind either ways. The only reason we are even having this conversation is cause I replied to an user and another user replied to me whom I replied to and u replied to me which is pretty ehh. But yea, I got stuff to do so don't expect a reply after this. |
The bolded is flat out wrong. When you look at the industry we're in, the most respected games now are games with compelling and well presented narratives. None of that is done on Nintendo consoles. People who look for that aren't looking at Nintendo for that. If a huge game like Zelda premiered with a presentation that matched those other games, people would absolutely notice. "Look what happened to RE" isn't a valid argument either. RE turned from one type of game to another. That's not an incremental and nessecary improvement like voice acting is. They are not related at all.
Adding VA isn't Zelda competing. Adding VA is Zelda staying relevant. VA absolutely is one of the main things that separates Zelda from those games. The lack of VA is a monumental crutch on the progression of the franchise. You're actively saying that there's no reason Nintendo should actively try to make a better product, because it won't sell well regardless. Save progress for the next Zelda, right? No. Go all out or don't go at all. The result in adding VA would not be "minimal gain." It would be a complete revolution in the storytelling of the series.
