By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Khan on 23 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
axt113 said:
theRepublic said:
Smashchu2 said:

On Zelda: Nintendo, as a first party developer, makes games that will push hardware sales. Zelda games are losing their strength at doing this. Spirit Tracks is a sign. It did horrible for a Nintendo developed Zelda game, and it really didn't move DSs. Twilight Princess may be a mask, as it was also a launch title for one of the biggest console releases ever. Even games like Excite Track and Red Steel did well where their sequels did not. Also, with population growhts, expansion into other regions, and a general increase in income of gamers, why has a Zelda not beated OoT?

Also, the industry is not in a good state, and you can see it all around you. Sony and Microsoft have lost millions, if not billions. Most third party companies are stagnent and their beloved series are becoming more and more irrelevant.

I question whether any Zelda has really been a system seller.  I never went over to anyone's house to play Zelda.  It was always Mario and Duck Hunt.

You ask why nothing has beaten OoT, but OoT was not an arcadey game.  OoT has much more in common with Twilight Princess than the older Zelda titles.  I have not played the DS Zeldas so I can't comment on those.  We can't just say that moving the series in an arcade direction would bring higher sales, when that is not historically true for this franchise.  I will also point out that OoT also had the disadvantage of being on a console that was in less households than the arcadey Zeldas.

I know the industry is in a bad state.  Where did I say otherwise?  I just think that if you use the term flop the way axt113 does, then the word loses all its meaning.  Flop is a strong word, and there should be many shades of grey between calling something a flop and wild success.  The way axt113 used the word flop though, those two extremes were basically being used as black and white with no in-between.


I disagree, its because gaming is in such a bad state that NSMB Wii, Wii sports, Wii fit, etc are considered a wild success, Wii games is how all good games should perform, its just that most games are garbage, so a game like NSMB Wii looks like a runaway success, but really that just supports the idea that not only is gaming in a bad state, but that people have come to see the bad state as how it should be, and so games that should be the norm, are considered amazing, that is an incorrect way of looking at things, Wii is nothing special, its a technologically modern NES, how sad that in 25 years, we've only just come back to the level of NES, just with better graphics, even Nintendo is to blame, I mean they were partly responsible for the path gaming has gone down.

Yes OoT was a fine game, but why is it that OoT hasn't been surpassed, its over a decade old, but instead, Zelda has been stagnant and decaying, with flop after flop, Skyward sword looks to keep that trend going, instead of trying to replicate OoT, Nintendo should have been trying to create something better.


Flop means to lose money, not simply have diminishing sales. There is a differnce. If they were flops, the series might have been cancelled already.


Not even a matter of losing money, but failing to meet expectations, and at the end of the day we have no idea what Nintendo expected Zelda games to do, especially given how conservative their bean counters usually are.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
axt113 on 23 July 2010
Khuutra said:
axt113 said:

Quite a few 3D Zeldas have been flops, if a game fails to expand the fanbase, and even causes it to stagnate or shrink, and fails to move hardware, then how can you call it a success, just because it outsells other flops?  No, success is when it moves hardware and expands the franchise to new people.

All 2D Zeldas after the first were flops, then, particularly Link to the Past.


True, LttP failed to increase the franchise after LoZ

With 3D Zelda, however, the decline has been worse, I mean the population is larger and gaming is in more places WW, and the Wii has a far larger install base, and BW compatibility, and yet 3D Zelda has failed to even get back the base of OoT, heck TP was on two consoles and yet sold less than OoT, I mean how can you defend that.



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

axt113 on 23 July 2010
Mr Khan said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
axt113 said:
theRepublic said:
Smashchu2 said:

On Zelda: Nintendo, as a first party developer, makes games that will push hardware sales. Zelda games are losing their strength at doing this. Spirit Tracks is a sign. It did horrible for a Nintendo developed Zelda game, and it really didn't move DSs. Twilight Princess may be a mask, as it was also a launch title for one of the biggest console releases ever. Even games like Excite Track and Red Steel did well where their sequels did not. Also, with population growhts, expansion into other regions, and a general increase in income of gamers, why has a Zelda not beated OoT?

Also, the industry is not in a good state, and you can see it all around you. Sony and Microsoft have lost millions, if not billions. Most third party companies are stagnent and their beloved series are becoming more and more irrelevant.

I question whether any Zelda has really been a system seller.  I never went over to anyone's house to play Zelda.  It was always Mario and Duck Hunt.

You ask why nothing has beaten OoT, but OoT was not an arcadey game.  OoT has much more in common with Twilight Princess than the older Zelda titles.  I have not played the DS Zeldas so I can't comment on those.  We can't just say that moving the series in an arcade direction would bring higher sales, when that is not historically true for this franchise.  I will also point out that OoT also had the disadvantage of being on a console that was in less households than the arcadey Zeldas.

I know the industry is in a bad state.  Where did I say otherwise?  I just think that if you use the term flop the way axt113 does, then the word loses all its meaning.  Flop is a strong word, and there should be many shades of grey between calling something a flop and wild success.  The way axt113 used the word flop though, those two extremes were basically being used as black and white with no in-between.


I disagree, its because gaming is in such a bad state that NSMB Wii, Wii sports, Wii fit, etc are considered a wild success, Wii games is how all good games should perform, its just that most games are garbage, so a game like NSMB Wii looks like a runaway success, but really that just supports the idea that not only is gaming in a bad state, but that people have come to see the bad state as how it should be, and so games that should be the norm, are considered amazing, that is an incorrect way of looking at things, Wii is nothing special, its a technologically modern NES, how sad that in 25 years, we've only just come back to the level of NES, just with better graphics, even Nintendo is to blame, I mean they were partly responsible for the path gaming has gone down.

Yes OoT was a fine game, but why is it that OoT hasn't been surpassed, its over a decade old, but instead, Zelda has been stagnant and decaying, with flop after flop, Skyward sword looks to keep that trend going, instead of trying to replicate OoT, Nintendo should have been trying to create something better.


Flop means to lose money, not simply have diminishing sales. There is a differnce. If they were flops, the series might have been cancelled already.


Not even a matter of losing money, but failing to meet expectations, and at the end of the day we have no idea what Nintendo expected Zelda games to do, especially given how conservative their bean counters usually are.


Wii Music sold well over two million copies, yet it was without a doubt a flop, a damaging flop



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

axt113 on 23 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
axt113 said:
theRepublic said:
Smashchu2 said:

On Zelda: Nintendo, as a first party developer, makes games that will push hardware sales. Zelda games are losing their strength at doing this. Spirit Tracks is a sign. It did horrible for a Nintendo developed Zelda game, and it really didn't move DSs. Twilight Princess may be a mask, as it was also a launch title for one of the biggest console releases ever. Even games like Excite Track and Red Steel did well where their sequels did not. Also, with population growhts, expansion into other regions, and a general increase in income of gamers, why has a Zelda not beated OoT?

Also, the industry is not in a good state, and you can see it all around you. Sony and Microsoft have lost millions, if not billions. Most third party companies are stagnent and their beloved series are becoming more and more irrelevant.

I question whether any Zelda has really been a system seller.  I never went over to anyone's house to play Zelda.  It was always Mario and Duck Hunt.

You ask why nothing has beaten OoT, but OoT was not an arcadey game.  OoT has much more in common with Twilight Princess than the older Zelda titles.  I have not played the DS Zeldas so I can't comment on those.  We can't just say that moving the series in an arcade direction would bring higher sales, when that is not historically true for this franchise.  I will also point out that OoT also had the disadvantage of being on a console that was in less households than the arcadey Zeldas.

I know the industry is in a bad state.  Where did I say otherwise?  I just think that if you use the term flop the way axt113 does, then the word loses all its meaning.  Flop is a strong word, and there should be many shades of grey between calling something a flop and wild success.  The way axt113 used the word flop though, those two extremes were basically being used as black and white with no in-between.


I disagree, its because gaming is in such a bad state that NSMB Wii, Wii sports, Wii fit, etc are considered a wild success, Wii games is how all good games should perform, its just that most games are garbage, so a game like NSMB Wii looks like a runaway success, but really that just supports the idea that not only is gaming in a bad state, but that people have come to see the bad state as how it should be, and so games that should be the norm, are considered amazing, that is an incorrect way of looking at things, Wii is nothing special, its a technologically modern NES, how sad that in 25 years, we've only just come back to the level of NES, just with better graphics, even Nintendo is to blame, I mean they were partly responsible for the path gaming has gone down.

Yes OoT was a fine game, but why is it that OoT hasn't been surpassed, its over a decade old, but instead, Zelda has been stagnant and decaying, with flop after flop, Skyward sword looks to keep that trend going, instead of trying to replicate OoT, Nintendo should have been trying to create something better.


Flop means to lose money, not simply have diminishing sales. There is a differnce. If they were flops, the series might have been cancelled already.


Wii music says Hi



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

Khuutra on 23 July 2010
axt113 said:
Khuutra said:

All 2D Zeldas after the first were flops, then, particularly Link to the Past.

True, LttP failed to increase the franchise after LoZ

With 3D Zelda, however, the decline has been worse, I mean the population is larger and gaming is in more places WW, and the Wii has a far larger install base, and BW compatibility, and yet 3D Zelda has failed to even get back the base of OoT, heck TP was on two consoles and yet sold less than OoT, I mean how can you defend that.

Because one can't pretend that an increase in userbase necessarily equates to an increase in appeal. Not everyone is going to care about Zelda: if they did, they would have bought it. Similarly, we can't pretend that holding to similar formulas will hav consistent appeal over time.

This is not relevant. Your post implied that 3D Zelda was the problem: there is absolutely nothing to indicate that. 3D Zeldas sell as well as or better than 2D Zeldas.

Zelda, as a series, just does not have wide appeal. That's the bold-faced fact of it.



Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 23 July 2010
axt113 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
axt113 said:
theRepublic said:
Smashchu2 said:

On Zelda: Nintendo, as a first party developer, makes games that will push hardware sales. Zelda games are losing their strength at doing this. Spirit Tracks is a sign. It did horrible for a Nintendo developed Zelda game, and it really didn't move DSs. Twilight Princess may be a mask, as it was also a launch title for one of the biggest console releases ever. Even games like Excite Track and Red Steel did well where their sequels did not. Also, with population growhts, expansion into other regions, and a general increase in income of gamers, why has a Zelda not beated OoT?

Also, the industry is not in a good state, and you can see it all around you. Sony and Microsoft have lost millions, if not billions. Most third party companies are stagnent and their beloved series are becoming more and more irrelevant.

I question whether any Zelda has really been a system seller.  I never went over to anyone's house to play Zelda.  It was always Mario and Duck Hunt.

You ask why nothing has beaten OoT, but OoT was not an arcadey game.  OoT has much more in common with Twilight Princess than the older Zelda titles.  I have not played the DS Zeldas so I can't comment on those.  We can't just say that moving the series in an arcade direction would bring higher sales, when that is not historically true for this franchise.  I will also point out that OoT also had the disadvantage of being on a console that was in less households than the arcadey Zeldas.

I know the industry is in a bad state.  Where did I say otherwise?  I just think that if you use the term flop the way axt113 does, then the word loses all its meaning.  Flop is a strong word, and there should be many shades of grey between calling something a flop and wild success.  The way axt113 used the word flop though, those two extremes were basically being used as black and white with no in-between.


I disagree, its because gaming is in such a bad state that NSMB Wii, Wii sports, Wii fit, etc are considered a wild success, Wii games is how all good games should perform, its just that most games are garbage, so a game like NSMB Wii looks like a runaway success, but really that just supports the idea that not only is gaming in a bad state, but that people have come to see the bad state as how it should be, and so games that should be the norm, are considered amazing, that is an incorrect way of looking at things, Wii is nothing special, its a technologically modern NES, how sad that in 25 years, we've only just come back to the level of NES, just with better graphics, even Nintendo is to blame, I mean they were partly responsible for the path gaming has gone down.

Yes OoT was a fine game, but why is it that OoT hasn't been surpassed, its over a decade old, but instead, Zelda has been stagnant and decaying, with flop after flop, Skyward sword looks to keep that trend going, instead of trying to replicate OoT, Nintendo should have been trying to create something better.


Flop means to lose money, not simply have diminishing sales. There is a differnce. If they were flops, the series might have been cancelled already.


Wii music says Hi


No it doesn't, because it still made money. The failure was in not being a killer app, not in making less than its cost.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Soma on 23 July 2010

For Nintendo standards, a game that doesn't move hardware when it's planned to do it, is certainly a flop. Wii Music was a holiday title, it's clear Nintendo thought it was going to move hardware with it. It failed to do it and not only that, it damaged so much the image of the Wii that Nintendo stopped producing that title already.

I don't know if Nintendo considers Zelda as a system seller, maybe in the same level as Mario Galaxy which is not too much.



Castlevania Judgment FC:     1161 - 3389 - 1512

3DS Friend Code:   3480-2746-6289


Wii Friend Code: 4268-9719-1932-3069

LordTheNightKnight on 23 July 2010
Soma said:

For Nintendo standards, a game that doesn't move hardware when it's planned to do it, is certainly a flop. Wii Music was a holiday title, it's clear Nintendo thought it was going to move hardware with it. It failed to do it and not only that, it damaged so much the image of the Wii that Nintendo stopped producing that title already.

I don't know if Nintendo considers Zelda as a system seller, maybe in the same level as Mario Galaxy which is not too much.


No, the word does not change definitions to fit situations. Something makes money or it doesn't.

It seems the word is thrown around just because a lot of you think there isn't another word or term to describe these.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Soma on 23 July 2010

How do we know Wii Music made money? We don't know how much it cost to develop. It's not only the programming and graphic design, but the time it took since thinking in the concept. It was in development for a few years if I remember correctly.

Edit:  Ok, flop is about not making money? Ok, let's say it was not a flop, but for Nintendo it was certainly a failure.



Castlevania Judgment FC:     1161 - 3389 - 1512

3DS Friend Code:   3480-2746-6289


Wii Friend Code: 4268-9719-1932-3069

axt113 on 23 July 2010
Khuutra said:
axt113 said:
Khuutra said:

All 2D Zeldas after the first were flops, then, particularly Link to the Past.

True, LttP failed to increase the franchise after LoZ

With 3D Zelda, however, the decline has been worse, I mean the population is larger and gaming is in more places WW, and the Wii has a far larger install base, and BW compatibility, and yet 3D Zelda has failed to even get back the base of OoT, heck TP was on two consoles and yet sold less than OoT, I mean how can you defend that.

Because one can't pretend that an increase in userbase necessarily equates to an increase in appeal. Not everyone is going to care about Zelda: if they did, they would have bought it. Similarly, we can't pretend that holding to similar formulas will hav consistent appeal over time.

This is not relevant. Your post implied that 3D Zelda was the problem: there is absolutely nothing to indicate that. 3D Zeldas sell as well as or better than 2D Zeldas.

Zelda, as a series, just does not have wide appeal. That's the bold-faced fact of it.


Actually yeah, see more people buying it means it has greater appeal, and how do you explain the success of NSMB if games can't have consistent appeal?

 

Also, yeah you can say 3D Zelda is the problem, since its fan-base hasn't kept pace with increases in population or console base, in addition, if OoT was able to sell as well as it did, then it is a sign of 3D decline if it cannot get back to that point even on a far larger base, in fact two console bases



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea