| curl-6 said: I'm more inclined to attribute those particular declines to COD and AC suffering from serious franchise fatigue after years and years of annual entries, (not to mention the anger and disappointment towards Infinite Warfare) and the first Watch Dogs being massively overhyped and surrounded by bad press over its graphical downgrades. I'm sure that five or even ten years from now, games with polish issues will still be dominating the charts. The next Elder Scrolls game will launch with more bugs than a square kilometer of Amazon rainforest, but it will sell like crack-laced hotcakes. Two Zeldas per generation, three years apart, would be quite reasonable the way I see it. |
AC and Watch Dogs decline is significantly contributed by the poor quality control to the point Ubisofts' name has become a running joke among gamers for glitchy games as much as Bethesda.
The is only so long you can get away with doing things with bad habits and many so called big AAA franchises of old that have disappeared now are a reference to that, Zelda is much better off not adopting such poor habits becuase their approach how ever long it takes consistently delivers a high quality game and high polish and in some cases is one of the defining games of a gen. It's been doing it since before many of the games you mentioned even existed and will likely be doing it long after some of them have faded or even disappeared all together.
I'd much rather have one really good well polished Zelda game per gen where they've taken their time and fit as much of their intended ideas in it as possible then 2 or 3 that they've rushed out just to meet a deadline for the sake of releasing a Zelda game.
