Mythmaker1 said:
That doesn't strike me as a particularly apt comparison. In terms of sheer scale, these games are very different animals. And Zelda dungeons are, with very few exceptions, not exactly complex, or even particularly deep; they aren't bad, but they're pretty simple overall. |
ehhhh I think you are missing the point, Zelda dungeons aren't necessarily the biggest around, but they are legendary in terms of clever design and puzzles. I think you are underestimating the difficulty in successfully pulling off a mix of puzzle/combat large dungeons in games. Its easy to do a game that is primarily combat sort of dungeon (think of the plethora of ones in a game like the Elder Scrolls), or to do a puzzle heavy type (think a Tomb Raider game), but the balance Zelda games have is something unique
bear in mind practically no other studio has been able to successfully pull off a similar type of game mechanic as consistently or very often
also its a regularly mentioned thing that Nintendo prefers using smaller teams that can work better together, cohesively, rather than giant teams just scraping through as much work as possible.
a company like Rockstar generally presents more QUANTITY over QUALITY. Nintendo and Rockstar are just about opposites and their development process is no exception to that, beyond the fact that both take a while to make big flagship games (again one taking a long time based on the sheer size of game, the other with perfecting the details)
