| tolu619 said: "Heavily built on previous gens" and "been using the same engine since the N64 days" are not the same thing. You don't seem to know what an engine is in software architecture. You're acting like this is an argument between you and I in which one person has to win. It isn't. I simply corrected your wrong statement and you simply refuse to hear the truth. You clearly don't have much to say in response to what I've explained, seeing as you specifically picked out one example, the example I cited about converting to Unity, and then failed to explain why my example or explanation was wrong. You can chose not to learn, but I'll bet some others who have read my posts would learn a few things. That's supposed to be one of the advantages of forums. I've learnt a lot from people here, and it shouldn't be hard to research the validity of my statements. You have search engines at your disposal. And you can also ask your friend who works/worked at Microsoft whether your statement about using the same engine is even possible.
@Rolstoppable, your point about the treatment of the Zelda team sounds very likely now that you explain it. |
There's is nothing to learn from you, other than how to be obnoxious. The Zelda team (and the GTA team) (and the Windows team!) have used the same basic framework for eons. They build on it each generation. A software "engine" is a framework used in game development that may include things like rendering engine, physics engine, sound, ai, etc. Very little has changed in the core physics and gameplay of Zelda or GTA since the N64. Elements have been added and improved gen on gen, but the foundation lies in those early 3D games.
The main point is, however, that people defend Zelda's long dev time by saying it is build from scratch with each title, which is silly. The visuals are either new or improved, but the game mechanics have hardly changed at all.
