prayformojo said:
Pavolink said:
prayformojo said:
3D Land is a product of Iwata's Nintendo, which is a Nintendo that likes to port successful handheld games to their consoles to save on cost and time. Everything about modern Nintendo is about saving on costs and time. Before design, concept, gameplay and anything else, comes cost. Everything MUST be done as cheaply as possible before it's even considered. That's why the Wii was a Gamecube with a new controller and the Wii-U is a 360 with a new controller. It's why the 3DS and Wii-U doesn't have capacitive screens. It's why 3D Land exists instead of a modern Mario64 ( a game that DWARFS 3D Land in ambition). It's why none of their games have extremely deep online gameplay. It's why it took so many years for them to finally start using real music instead of midi. It's why they STILL refuse to start using full voice actors.
People want to believe them when they say they have a reason for excluding this or that, but it comes down to Iwata and his business sense. He is all about investors and profit margins. He will not green light big projects if there is even a moderate risk of not making a huge bottom line. Sometimes it's paid off, other times, it hasn't. I think going forward, he's going to have to get with the times and spend of that capital. Nintendo's console games are starting to become love letters to an era that doesn't exist anymore. |
Well, SS had a lot of risk and didn't sell well. Other M wasn't chep, either, nor Brawl. Althought, I can understand your point.
I hope the go out of the park for Zelda U.
|
WW was the result of the same thing. Spaceworld had the promise of this HUGE ambitions Zelda that we've always dreamed of but instead, we got a cartoon game because it was just alot cheaper to make. I would bet my entire NES collection of 70 games plus top loader and all accessories that Zelda-U won't look liket he demo we saw, won't have cutscenes,voice overs and everything else we all expect from the first HD entry.
A game like that would cost way too much for them. I hope I'm wrong though.
|
lol cheaper to make would be a realistic stile since that takes less time and creativity to produce. same goes for SS why not stick to the formula that works to get more cash if it was the way you stated? it took them 4 or more years to make SS when they could have used the same graphic stile as TP if they wanted to go cheaper. there are a lot of ways Nintendo can make easy cash and they don't do it with their big games. they could do the same thing 3rd parties do and just milk the same thing but instead they invent with visuals and gameplay which is more risky.
btw Zelda WiiU has already been confirmed to have a different stile to the demo we saw at E3 and it won't be because it's cheaper to make like I stated above
