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

Because Nintendo has this strange desire to release games that aren't broken at launch and require numerous patches.



Around the Network
mZuzek said:
Mythmaker1 said:

I'd argue that it's "hated" because it's simply not good. What it does have is a lot of fan-service, a unique art-style, and superficially interesting combat mechanics. 

Speak for yourself. In my opinion it's a far better game than Twilight Princess or Ocarina of Time (considering OoT by today's standards, not 1998's). I have several reasons for this, but in the end it all comes down to opinion.

No 3D Zelda game - hell, no mainline home console Zelda except Zelda 2 - has ever been "not good". They are all fantastic games. Some people like one or another better and a couple of others not so much, but they are all stellar titles.

My opinion is that Skyward Sword isn't good (on its own merits, much less judged as part of the series), but that opinion is not based on taste. The story is, by virtually any standard, shallow, badly paced, and internally inconsistent. The mechanics are, by virtually any standard, lacking strategic depth or challenge. And while elements of Ocarina of Time have not aged well, many of those elements are present in Skyward Sword, and to an even greater degree.

I don't like Skyward Sword. You may enjoy it, but I can't think of a reasonable standard by which it can be considered a "good" game.



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

Mythmaker1 said:
PwerlvlAmy said:


Every Zelda becomes ''the most hated'' no one is ever happy. It's the ''Zelda Cycle'' just like Sonic has.

You can't really compare the "Zelda Cycle" and the "Sonic Cycle." Even if we acknowledge both of them, the way they purport to work is completely different.


Yes I can. They're both cycles in which people judge the franchise. Its perfect valid and its completely based off real events that commonly keep occuring



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

Mythmaker1 said:

My opinion is that Skyward Sword isn't good (on its own merits, much less judged as part of the series), but that opinion is not based on taste. The story is, by virtually any standard, shallow, badly paced, and internally inconsistent. The mechanics are, by virtually any standard, lacking strategic depth or challenge. And while elements of Ocarina of Time have not aged well, many of those elements are present in Skyward Sword, and to an even greater degree.

I don't like Skyward Sword. You may enjoy it, but I can't think of a reasonable standard by which it can be considered a "good" game.

blah blah blah.

I could say all the same crap about Ocarina of Time. Skyward Sword was fun, immersive, intense and touching. It had an incredible plot, music, level design, artstyle and setting. Each part of the game feels distinctly unique and has loads of interesting gameplay mechanics on its own. The motion controls were perfect and brought you right into the game.

Ocarina of Time had an average plot that was 50% borrowed from A Link to the Past, was easy as fuck from start to finish, was ridiculously obscure at times on how it guided the players to progress and the combat was very, very simple. The artstyle was meh, the music, though consistently good, wasn't anything special for the most part, the first 3 dungeons sucked hard, the bosses were mostly pretty bad (alright, Skyward Sword's bosses were mostly bad too), and overall the game was just as generic as it could get. Add to that the fact that the game aged HORRIBLY (easily the worst aging effect out of any Zelda game) and you have one hell of an overrated game. (Edit: seriously, the only really stellar thing about that game were the 5 temples, and some of them weren't even that good.)

See how that goes? That's opinion. I'm not alone in thinking Skyward Sword was great, so you can't just outright say I'm wrong. I, for the life of me, simply CANNOT understand how some people think Link's Awakening or The Minish Cap were incredible games or something, but I guess that's their opinion. To me, those were easily the most bland and boring Zelda games I've played.



PwerlvlAmy said:
Mythmaker1 said:

You can't really compare the "Zelda Cycle" and the "Sonic Cycle." Even if we acknowledge both of them, the way they purport to work is completely different.


Yes I can. They're both cycles in which people judge the franchise. Its perfect valid and its completely based off real events that commonly keep occuring

The "Sonic Cycle" is based on the idea that, after a game is announced, fans get excited for it and begin to think it's good. After it comes out, they realize their expectations were too high after critics and popular opinion tear it to pieces. The game is thrown on the pile of bad Sonic games, and the cycle repeats with the announcement of a enw game.

The Zelda Cycle is based on the idea that, after a game is released, it gets near-universal praise from critics and the community. After a time, the community and a portion of critics turn on the game, comparing it negatively to the last game in the series, which in turn gets a boost in status. This continues until the next game releases, at which point the cycle repeats.

As someone who is familiar with both franchises, neither of these things really hold true, and they have few similarities between them.



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

Around the Network
mZuzek said:
Mythmaker1 said:

My opinion is that Skyward Sword isn't good (on its own merits, much less judged as part of the series), but that opinion is not based on taste. The story is, by virtually any standard, shallow, badly paced, and internally inconsistent. The mechanics are, by virtually any standard, lacking strategic depth or challenge. And while elements of Ocarina of Time have not aged well, many of those elements are present in Skyward Sword, and to an even greater degree.

I don't like Skyward Sword. You may enjoy it, but I can't think of a reasonable standard by which it can be considered a "good" game.

blah blah blah.

I could say all the same crap about...

And with that, it's done.

No thanks.



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

Mythmaker1 said:
mZuzek said:

blah blah blah.

And with that, it's done.

No thanks.

Thank you.



ErikaEinhardt said:
PwerlvlAmy said:
id rather they take lke 4-5 years to make the game quality rather than fart one out every 2 years and rush it

And yet one of the top 3 most popular games in the franchise took just a year when one of the most hated took 5... maybe they should learn to reuse a games engine and assets every now and then.

Those three can be easily explained. Link to the Past was simplistic in comparison to the other two. Ocarina of Time came out about 7 years after. Majora's Mask was largely based on Ocarina of Time.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

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.

Because maybe they don't build Zelda games from scratch? Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword are supposedly powered by Wind Waker's engine, of course, heavily modified, but still. They may also struggle with the design somehow, especially with SS and especially with the Wii U game, since it's the first real HD entry and the first one with having a different structural scheme (it's open world) since, basically, A Link to the Past. I'm surprised that they may even only last five years. 



Ambition and Aonuma self-consumed with beating the previous zelda with the new zelda