Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why do Zelda Console games take 5 years to develop.... ?

Fusioncode said:
Perfection takes time.


And less than perfection takes more time.



Around the Network
TheLastStarFighter said:
Miyamotoo said:

Yes, you missing something.

You: Recent Zeldas have been of poorer quality but taking longer to make.

Me: 99 quality game probably will never happen again, all other Zelda scores are around 95 and SS is 93, yes truly so poorer quality. Every new Zelda is becoming bigger and more complex, so its needed more time, especially if it is first HD, most open and with biggest world in any Zelda game.

If we look development of all previous Zelda games and Zelda U, I think only SS need to be finished in less time, but like I wrote, I think late implantation of Motion Controls affect on long development of SS.

Why you think Zelda U will not be one of the best Zelda experience ever, all we heard or saw about Zelda U is very very promising.

SS should have been done quicker, and now Zelda U.  I have truly high hopes for Zelda U because I think they have learned from a number of mistakes with SS.  It looks very promising.  But at the same time, it has literally been a decade since a Zelda title was at the forefront of the gaming industry.  A decade!  That's a failure for the team.

I agree for SS, and I think Motion Controls are reason for that.

But how you can expect too make Zelda U quicker!? First HD Zelda, most biggest world and most open world Zelda. Seriously, Zelda U have huge world, especially if we compared with other Zelda games.

Frankly I would be suprised if they released Zelda U this year, I would have feeling that is somehow rushed.

"Because of the hardware limitations, what we always had to do was segment off each area and piece those segments together in a way that made them feel like a big world. But now with the hardware capabilities of the Wii U, what we did is we first started by saying, 'Let's see what we can do if we take an entire world the size of the world from Twilight Princess and just try to make that as one area in the game."

 

Skyward Sword was one of the best games of last generation.



Jon-Erich said:

1. Hell no. Not that one. Maybe they could have outsourced Phantom Hourglass or Spirit Tracks but Not A Link Between Worlds. That game has been the best game released in years. Besdies, after the turmiol that they faced with Capcom and the Oracle games, I doubt Nintendo would ever outsource any Zelda game that isn't a spinoff or a remake. 

2. You call it one of the worst things ever but it has resulted in some of Nintendo's best games ever. It's always better to get a good product out than it is to get an okay product out on time. Also, imagine if we things the way you think they should be. Ocarina of Time would been reduced to being Super 64 set in the Zelda universe. If Shinji Mikami cared only about getting a game out on time, we would have never gotten the Resident Evil 4 that we ended up with. We're talking some of the most influential games ever. They ended up the way they did because the creators knew when to slam on the breaks start over. They chose to ignore the intended release in order to create a better product and the world is a better place because of it.

3. Those games don't even come close to what Nintendo is trying to achieve. Also, lazy? No. If they were lazy, they would make OOT over again, give it a coat of realisitc graphics in order to to appease the Western gamers and then have it out by the holidays even if it's full of bugs and glitches in order to appease the shareholders.

Aonuma's problem isn't that he's lazy and doesn't care. It's the opposite. He does care. Maybe a little too much. He still cares in an industry where people have been taught to stop caring. We've seen where not giving a shit has led companies. Look no further than Sega, Capcom, and Konami. Then there are those companies in the West who give us broken products at launch and expect us not to care about it. Why did they do this? Because they cared about getting a game out by a certain date in order appease the shareholders. Not because they cared about the product.

1. Why not? ALBW is not as good as Skyward Sword. Even Ocarina of Time 3D has a higher score. Game could have been done by Grezzo rather than Majora's Mask 3D.

2. Like what games benefit from that?

3. What is Nintendo trying to achieve that those games didn't make? Praised big JRPG.

 

And yes, he is lazy. If cared he would have new ideas as soon as the previous project was finished. The perfect example is Zelda II, a vastly different game from the previous iteration and with a short development cycle.

I don't get what are you trying to argue. Game is taking a lot of time, it has been proved and many other users has said it: the waste time playing with many ideas before entering production, and during development they scratch or change to the point of wasting more time, like Skyward Sword. I honestly don't get how can anyone defend that. Franchise is going in a downward spiral and you applaud. I care for the franchise, the one that made me enter to the videogame realm, and because I like it I won't be blind fan that approves every wrong decision.

They delayed a game for a complete year to make a new version, the wasted time in a game that scored the lowest of the 3D iterations. Nothing changes that facts.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Miyamotoo said:

I agree for SS, and I think Motion Controls are reason for that.

But how you can expect too make Zelda U quicker!? First HD Zelda, most biggest world and most open world Zelda. Seriously, Zelda U have huge world, especially if we compared with other Zelda games.

Frankly I would be suprised if they released Zelda U this year, I would have feeling that is somehow rushed.

"Because of the hardware limitations, what we always had to do was segment off each area and piece those segments together in a way that made them feel like a big world. But now with the hardware capabilities of the Wii U, what we did is we first started by saying, 'Let's see what we can do if we take an entire world the size of the world from Twilight Princess and just try to make that as one area in the game."

 

Skyward Sword was one of the best games of last generation.

I agree I think they needed more time for Zelda U - and I want them to get it right - but like so many Zeldas, it sounds like it's going throug a re-work mid-project.  They're not even showing it at e3 when it was supposed to be a year from production last year.  So they either botched the initial concept or the re-work isn't needed, either way it seems like a bit of a failing.  As Pavo said earlier, if they didn't bother reworking SS's controls and now whatever they're doing with U, both titles could be out by now and another on the way.

And lots of developers make great games in less time.  Arkham Knight has been delayed from 3 years into 4, and it will be every bit as abitious as Zelda if the previous entries are any indication.  The previous titles were on 3 year schedules.

SS was a fine game, but on Wii it was easily surpassed by Mario Galaxy and Xenoblade.  On other systems games like Batman: AA, Mass Effect, Skyrim, GTA 5, Fable 2, Uncharted, Last of Us and many others push SS to a lesser teir.  Zelda needs to up its game again.



TheLastStarFighter said:
bigtakilla said:

Maybe you missed this

video

when polling multiple thousands of people Skyward Sword beat out OOT in every single catagory. Skyward Sword IS considered a masterpiece by all but the vocal minority who hate the motion controls. 

Nah, that's not true at all.  It has a 93 meta vs OoT's 99.  OoT also has sold over 10 million copies while SS struggled to sell just under 4.  Very few people would put SS at the top of the Zelda heap, but probably most would put OoT there.  Personally, the best ever for me is the original, but I digress.

The bottom line is SS, upon its release, did not see a single call for "best game ever" and didn't even get much consideration for game of the year.  Every Zelda in the past was a landmark, ground-breaking title.  SS was not.  It was "just" a real good game.  That's fine, but if you're Nintendo - the supposed finest game maker on the planet - and Zelda is your showcase series, that's not good enough.

If the games are simply going to be "good new entries in a beloved serires", and not an amazing new gameplay experience unlike anything before it, then the team should tighten up the dev schedule and stop fiddling around with pointless new game ideas for a few years before reworking everything.

The point wasn't to say it was better than OOT, the point is when looking at the view of the masses it is a very well received game. It would be considered the core gamers swan song of the Wii, and proof to many that motion controls were a viable control scheme for a game with depth. Did everyone love it? No. When the way you play a game is changed so drastically there are obviously going to be people upset with it. 

I also don't understand how it isn't an amazing new gameplay experience unlike anything before it.... It kind of was. True sword play that worked with the motion plus would show up first in Red Steel (which the motion plus came packaged with), correct me if I'm wrong though, but to be able to toss and roll bombs with 1:1 input, to be able to control the beetle and solve puzzles through its flight 1:1 it is the first time it has happened in a game. Basically it was the first game that didn't change its formula to utilize the motion controls but integrated them naturally, and it is every bit a masterpeice (and it isn't just me saying it).

http://n4g.com/news/892001/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-a-masterpiece-hooked-gamers

http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/tstitan_blog/archive/2013/11/09/skyward-sword-a-flawed-masterpiece.aspx

http://kotaku.com/5858011/30-seconds-of-skyward-sword-a-masterpiece-of-a-forest

http://www.zeldadungeon.net/2011/11/ign-skyward-sword-review/

Yes some of these huge gaming websites may not have liked the motion controls, but every one of them consideres it a masterpiece as well. As well as those who took to the IGN poll and gave Skyward Sword the viewers choice award for best LoZ ever.

"This latest entry of the Zelda series is not only hands down the best game on Wii, it's the greatest Zelda game ever created" - IGN

"By the lofty standards of The Legend of the Zelda franchise, Skyward Sword is a masterpiece." - N4G



Around the Network
TheLastStarFighter said:
Miyamotoo said:

I agree for SS, and I think Motion Controls are reason for that.

But how you can expect too make Zelda U quicker!? First HD Zelda, most biggest world and most open world Zelda. Seriously, Zelda U have huge world, especially if we compared with other Zelda games.

Frankly I would be suprised if they released Zelda U this year, I would have feeling that is somehow rushed.

"Because of the hardware limitations, what we always had to do was segment off each area and piece those segments together in a way that made them feel like a big world. But now with the hardware capabilities of the Wii U, what we did is we first started by saying, 'Let's see what we can do if we take an entire world the size of the world from Twilight Princess and just try to make that as one area in the game."

 

Skyward Sword was one of the best games of last generation.

I agree I think they needed more time for Zelda U - and I want them to get it right - but like so many Zeldas, it sounds like it's going throug a re-work mid-project.  They're not even showing it at e3 when it was supposed to be a year from production last year.  So they either botched the initial concept or the re-work isn't needed, either way it seems like a bit of a failing.  As Pavo said earlier, if they didn't bother reworking SS's controls and now whatever they're doing with U, both titles could be out by now and another on the way.

And lots of developers make great games in less time.  Arkham Knight has been delayed from 3 years into 4, and it will be every bit as abitious as Zelda if the previous entries are any indication.  The previous titles were on 3 year schedules.

SS was a fine game, but on Wii it was easily surpassed by Mario Galaxy and Xenoblade.  On other systems games like Batman: AA, Mass Effect, Skyrim, GTA 5, Fable 2, Uncharted, Last of Us and many others push SS to a lesser teir.  Zelda needs to up its game again.

Well I dont think Zelda U could be out by now in any case (unless you want half of game). Basically almost every 3D Zelda game except MM was delayed, so Zelda U is not difrent, add to that first HD Zelda, most biggest world and most open world.

Lots a developers make great games, but what developers makes great games for 30 years. And you can't compare other developers with Nintendo, especially Zelda game, every Zelda game, especially last few, are without any bugs or performance issues, maximum polished games on launch and they delivered experience that you can find in any other game.

Thats very subjective. Zelda games were always in their own tier, its no coincidence that one Zelda game usually is compared only with other Zelda games and not with another franchises, they are league are own.



mountaindewslave said:
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)

In terms of clever design, Zelda does contain some legendary examples. But it's a much more mixed bag than some people give them credit for. More importantly, "clever" isn't always a good thing if it's not executed properly. I could go on at length about how I felt dungeons in Skyward Sword missed the mark, but that's getting a bit far afield.

And your last point is pretty much exactly the point I was trying to make. Comparing GTA and Zelda, the only conclusions you can draw are abstact parallels. It's like comparing a gourmet dessert to a restaurant buffet.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

mountaindewslave said:
Arlo said:
Because they always build from scratch, and I have NO IDEA why. Why can't we get another Majora's Mask situation? Especially with development costs rising, it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel every time and only release two games per decade.


you say that but wait until a Metroid the Other M situation occurs where a Zelda game gets shot out to the public too early with a stupid concept or mediocre gameplay.... you'll feel differently then!

first and foremost quality matters. people keep mentioning Ocarina of Time to Wind Waker as if that was some mega quick transition period, that was 4 years and recall that the new Zelda game was originally planned to come out in 2015 and unfortunately has been delayed, but it had stuck to plan then it would have been in line with practically every year separation between Zelda's Nintendo has had in the past

I don't think that's an accurate comparison.  Other M was a failure because of its terrible ideas, which I don't think has anything to do with how quickly it was developed.

And I'm not saying they need to rush.  I'm saying they need to use their time wisely.  Say I built a model plane, then wanted to change it.  Instead of putting on a new coat of paint and swapping out some of the parts, I threw it away and built one entirely from scratch, yet in the end it was still the exact same model, only with a new coat of paint and some swapped-out parts.  I could have spent a fraction of the time and basically gotten the same product, or at least a product that I was still happy with.

It's not a sin to use a game's assets more than once.  I don't want a new art style and everything every single time if it means it takes this long to develop.  Majora's Mask came out two years after OOT, and it's amazing.  If this new Zelda came out, then was followed by another using the same engine and style a few years down the line, I would be ecstatic.



Arlo said:
mountaindewslave said:
Arlo said:
Because they always build from scratch, and I have NO IDEA why. Why can't we get another Majora's Mask situation? Especially with development costs rising, it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel every time and only release two games per decade.


you say that but wait until a Metroid the Other M situation occurs where a Zelda game gets shot out to the public too early with a stupid concept or mediocre gameplay.... you'll feel differently then!

first and foremost quality matters. people keep mentioning Ocarina of Time to Wind Waker as if that was some mega quick transition period, that was 4 years and recall that the new Zelda game was originally planned to come out in 2015 and unfortunately has been delayed, but it had stuck to plan then it would have been in line with practically every year separation between Zelda's Nintendo has had in the past

I don't think that's an accurate comparison.  Other M was a failure because of its terrible ideas, which I don't think has anything to do with how quickly it was developed.

And I'm not saying they need to rush.  I'm saying they need to use their time wisely.  Say I built a model plane, then wanted to change it.  Instead of putting on a new coat of paint and swapping out some of the parts, I threw it away and built one entirely from scratch, yet in the end it was still the exact same model, only with a new coat of paint and some swapped-out parts.  I could have spent a fraction of the time and basically gotten the same product, or at least a product that I was still happy with.

It's not a sin to use a game's assets more than once.  I don't want a new art style and everything every single time if it means it takes this long to develop.  Majora's Mask came out two years after OOT, and it's amazing.  If this new Zelda came out, then was followed by another using the same engine and style a few years down the line, I would be ecstatic.

They didn't throw all of Zelda U away though... All I got from his statements is that there were new gameplay mechanics he wanted to implement into LoZ Wii U. His exact statement:

"Since I declared at the Game Awards in December that the game would launch in 2015, the directors and the many members of the development team have been working hard developing the game," Aonuma said. "In these last three months, as the team has experienced first-hand the freedom of exploration that hasn't existed in any Zelda game to date, we have discovered several new possibilities for this game."

"As we have worked to turn these possibilities into reality, new ideas have continued to spring forth, and it now feels like we have the potential to create something that exceeds my own expectations," he added. "As I have watched our development progress, I have come to think that rather than work with meeting a specific schedule as our main objective, and releasing a game that reflects only what we can create within that scheduled time, I feel strongly that our focus should be to bring all these ideas to life in a way that will make Zelda on Wii U the best game it can possibly be."



bigtakilla said:
Arlo said:

I don't think that's an accurate comparison.  Other M was a failure because of its terrible ideas, which I don't think has anything to do with how quickly it was developed.

And I'm not saying they need to rush.  I'm saying they need to use their time wisely.  Say I built a model plane, then wanted to change it.  Instead of putting on a new coat of paint and swapping out some of the parts, I threw it away and built one entirely from scratch, yet in the end it was still the exact same model, only with a new coat of paint and some swapped-out parts.  I could have spent a fraction of the time and basically gotten the same product, or at least a product that I was still happy with.

It's not a sin to use a game's assets more than once.  I don't want a new art style and everything every single time if it means it takes this long to develop.  Majora's Mask came out two years after OOT, and it's amazing.  If this new Zelda came out, then was followed by another using the same engine and style a few years down the line, I would be ecstatic.

They didn't throw all of Zelda U away though... All I got from his statements is that there were new gameplay mechanics he wanted to implement into LoZ Wii U. His exact statement:

"Since I declared at the Game Awards in December that the game would launch in 2015, the directors and the many members of the development team have been working hard developing the game," Aonuma said. "In these last three months, as the team has experienced first-hand the freedom of exploration that hasn't existed in any Zelda game to date, we have discovered several new possibilities for this game."

"As we have worked to turn these possibilities into reality, new ideas have continued to spring forth, and it now feels like we have the potential to create something that exceeds my own expectations," he added. "As I have watched our development progress, I have come to think that rather than work with meeting a specific schedule as our main objective, and releasing a game that reflects only what we can create within that scheduled time, I feel strongly that our focus should be to bring all these ideas to life in a way that will make Zelda on Wii U the best game it can possibly be."

I'm not so much saying that they threw away Zelda U; it's more that going into it, they threw away Skyward Sword.  Going into Skyward Sword, they threw away Twilight Princess.  Going into Twilight Princes...  Well, you get the idea.  They keep recreating the entire world and art style, when they could easily get away with using each one at least twice and producing games (that are just as good, I might add) at a much faster rate.

Imagine if the Gamecube got two exclusive Zeldas--Wind Waker, and a sequel that continued the ocean thing but expanded on the idea, and gave us an even more awesome world to explore.  Then imagine that after Twilight Princess we got another one just like it, but in a new land with a new story and characters, that came out about halfway through the Wii's life.  Then that would have given them the time to release Zelda U closer to launch, and by now we would be hearing rumblings about the even-more-incredible sequel, that again improved upon the open world theme.

This is my dream.  But alas, 'tis only a dream...