| Soundwave said: Generally speaking Nintendo fans probably would've attacked someone 2 years ago if they said Mario 3D for the Wii U would be Mario 3D World, basically a direct sequel to 3D Land, not the "epic" Mario that they were going on about per se. Or that Retro's new game would be another Donkey Kong Country. Point is, Nintendo makes decisions based on their own internal design quirks and sales data not necessarily what their online community is clamouring for. |
At the same time, in terms of finances, Zelda in recent years has done its best as a somewhat realistic game. Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess being neck and neck for the top sales slot isn't really an accident. Neither did Link Between Worlds get a very good reception sales-wise, even as the critics loved it.
2D Zelda is less "risk", but a 3D Zelda has a certain degree of return, especially since you can apparently get a pretty epic game on a budget if you do it right (Xenoblade got a sequel, at its sales level, and that game had an excellent soundtrack and voice acting and larger worlds than any Zelda to date, and recall that Zelda *still* likely won't have voice acting going forward).
Money isn't really the issue in terms of scope, just as long as they can keep the development time down. Unfortunately the game could be another 4-year-cycle from Skyward Sword. That's where the money comes down, and changing it midway through would really just make it worse in that regard.
Plus, 3D World was plenty epic. DKCTF was definitely the one that was "low ambition" and a safe bet, but it was a game that needed to be made (not talking business here). Returns was more proof of concept, Tropical Freeze is the formula of a modern Donkey Kong game perfected. Much like 3D World itself was a game that needed to be made, to iron out the significant problems that held back 3D Land from being a truly superlative experience. 3D Land, again, was proof of concept, while 3D World was the grand adventure.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
