Support NeoGAF

[LegendofLex]

These numbers are outdated.

Twilight Princess sold 7.260.000 on the Wii and 1.320.000 on the GCN. Total: 8.580.000

Oh man you're right, I forgot we'd gotten updated Wii numbers semi-recently.

Still seems rather depressed given the overall Wii sales gap.

And, of course, that only really positively impacts Aonuma's Sales Average by about 200,000 avg units.

Edit: Anyway, I think that topic is sufficiently off my chest--time to get back to overanalyzing the actual information!

 

[maxcriden]

Well now that we're on the Western vs Japanese open world topic...

You think there are branching narrative paths? Maybe not for Link, but maybe for the other characters and environments?

ST is probably the only Zelda with multiple endings...and MM too, I guess.

I would be very surprised if there were permanent branching narrative paths that couldn't be undone a la MM. Nintendo games are usually not big on missables.

 

[Dimmle]

Even most western RPGs don't have meaningful branching paths. I doubt we'll see one in Zelda,

Besides, the timeline, man.

 

[zeldablue]

I would be very surprised if there were permanent branching narrative paths that couldn't be undone a la MM. Nintendo games are usually not big on missables.

Yeah, I don't want that.

TP had a lot of missable dialogue. :\

 

[maxcriden]

Yeah, I don't want that.

TP had a lot of missable dialogue. :\

Ah, did it? I don't remember that and plan on replaying it for the first time in years, very soon. I'll have to try to be really thorough, then.

 

[KiN0]

I hope this story is more removed from Zelda canon. By which I mean, I hope there's no triforce or master sword lore.

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

I hope there's a way for us to explore all of the options. It was easy to do in Majora's Mask because of the time cycle, so I wonder if Nintendo can come up with another way to do it. I like branching paths, but I also like exploring both paths, even for something trivial like deciding whether or not to "date" Peatrice in Skyward Sword.

 

[Peltz]

I hope there's a way for us to explore all of the options. It was easy to do in Majora's Mask because of the time cycle, so I wonder if Nintendo can come up with another way to do it. I like branching paths, but I also like exploring both paths, even for something trivial like deciding whether or not to "date" Peatrice in Skyward Sword.

Meh, I don't care if there's much dialogue in this game at all. I wouldn't mind if it adheres very closely to the original Legend of Zelda in that regard.

Letting me simply go and explore with as little context as possible would be a nice contrast from recent games in the series. I don't necessarily want that permanently, but I could see it being very cool for this particular entry in the series.

 

[LeadenStride]

I hope this story is more removed from Zelda canon. By which I mean, I hope there's no triforce or master sword lore.

Me too. Part of why MM and LA are among my favorite Zelda games.

 

[TheMoon]

Ah, did it? I don't remember that and plan on replaying it for the first time in years, very soon. I'll have to try to be really thorough, then.

I'm replaying it right now. The problem will be that all the NPC areas are sooo incredibly far apart that you will not want to run around to every town after every event to see if someone has something new to say. That's the part that irks me about TP, navigating through the world somehow wasn't fun once you've been everywhere for the first time.

 

[LegendofLex]

I would be very surprised if there were permanent branching narrative paths that couldn't be undone a la MM. Nintendo games are usually not big on missables.

I actually like the idea, as long as no actual items get locked out in the process.

MM handled this somewhat gracefully, too. I'll spoiler tag this in case anyone's gonna get MM3D and hasn't played the original:

Spoiler

If you didn't save the bomb shop lady, the Big Bomb Bag would show up in the Curiosity Shop after Sakon sells it off. You could still buy it, but at a much higher price than you'd pay for the Big Bomb Bag at the bomb shop.

So I wouldn't mind if certain event branches had an enduring impact on the world, as long as they could be resolved like the scenario above.

Of course, that wouldn't work for some scenarios.

Spoiler

For example, you need Sakon to come back to the Curiosity Shop with the Big Bomb Bag to complete the Kafei and Anju quest, so if you save the bomb shop lady you need to start the cycle over and let her get robbed.

However, they could resolve these kinds of scenarios by having these kinds of "prerequisite" events be satisfiable through a number of alternate scenarios (

Spoiler

like Sakon robbing the bomb shop lady on her trip home once every X number of days, with the first instance impacting the bomb shop inventory and subsequent ones being recurring events that qualify to advance the Kafei & Anju quest, for example

), some of them emergent or recurring.

 

[zeldablue]

I hope this story is more removed from Zelda canon. By which I mean, I hope there's no triforce or master sword lore.

Me too...

Ah, did it? I don't remember that and plan on replaying it for the first time in years, very soon. I'll have to try to be really thorough, then.

Yep. I forgot to tell the parents that the Ordonian kids were alive. You also see Rusl beaten up by monsters with Uli tending to him.

Go to the bar before beating Lakebed Temple and the Resistance group will make fun of your clothes. They think you're being really stupid for dressing like the hero. This is before Telma introduces you. They apologize later for misjudging you.

 

[ibyea]

Meh, I don't care if there's much dialogue in this game at all. I wouldn't mind if it adheres very closely to the original Legend of Zelda in that regard.

Letting me simply go and explore with as little context as possible would be a nice contrast from recent games in the series. I don't necessarily want that permanently, but I could see it being very cool for this particular entry in the series.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! ^_^

 

[ibyea]

Yeah, I don't want that.

TP had a lot of missable dialogue. :\

There was one I particularly liked from Collin's mom, I think, that I only found out through a let's play.

 

[ibyea]

I hope this story is more removed from Zelda canon. By which I mean, I hope there's no triforce or master sword lore.

That would be awesome. The few times Zelda did that turned out great.

 

[zeldablue]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! ^_^

Yeah...

I still want story. Lots of story.

 

[Astral Dog]

Zelda U should not be about removing story or cutscenes, just pacing them appropriately,dont dump most of the story at the first few hours, or at the end, and remove the useless tutorials and handholding.

They always do most of the story at the beginning, middle and end, many hours with nothing happening, Skyward Sword was the worst on this aspect.

 

[Not]

I hope this story is more removed from Zelda canon. By which I mean, I hope there's no triforce or master sword lore.

Well, we haven't seen either of them yet-- which is more than we can say for the Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword reveals.

EDIT: Story is why I play Zelda games. Exploration and interaction is 2nd. Finding secrets and unlocking gear and upgrades is 3rd. Figuring out puzzles 4th. Combat 5th. And stealth/timed sections 9,067th.

 

[LegendofLex]

Yeah...

I still want story. Lots of story.

I'd prefer lore and small character episodes (think Zelda II or OoT) to narrative and "story."

I'm perfectly capable of using my own imagination to fill in the gaps, and it's not like video games have no satisfying "story content" outside of cutscenes and dialogue.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Embellishing?

Yes embellishing.
I mean, damn girl...you're really reaching with a lot of this stuff. The data barely supports your argument, the four pre-Aonuma games that exist have been obliterated by OoT and TP and most of them fall in line with the general 3-4 mill expectation that's common for the series.
There is almost no difference in the sales of the pre-Aonuma and post-Aonuma games, and the differences that do exist are too small to be recognized as any sort of significant/notable phenomenon on the level of something like 2D Mario vs 3D Mario.
Why you continue to trot this tired point out in every LoZ thread is beyond me.
Stop trying to create a narrative that doesn't exist.

 

[LegendofLex]

Yes embellishing.
I mean, damn girl...you're really reaching with a lot of this stuff. The data barely supports your argument, the four pre-Aonuma games that exist have been obliterated by OoT and TP and most of them fall in line with the general 3-4 mill expectation that's common for the series.

But isn't part of my argument that the addressable market for large-world games is much larger today, as demonstrated by Skyrim/Minecraft/et al, and that Zelda's sales should, if Nintendo is appropriately positioning the series, actually be stronger now than they were in the 80s and 90s?

Yes, yes it is

There is no world in which the Aonuma games are not considerably less popular (by at least 1 million sales on average) than the pre-Aonuma games, and that's despite the gaming population (and particularly the population that is hungry for games with large worlds) having very significantly grown since then.

No one seems particularly interested in addressing this, though. It's always handwaved away with "but Zelda is nothing like those games" or "but Zelda is still selling 3-4 million copies, so nothing's wrong." Meanwhile, wasn't Nintendo's line last generation that stagnation/lack of growth is going to kill the industry? But of course no one really cares about that when you're talking about their favorite hobby- that's business-talk and we'll have no part in it.

The dialog around the series' future has generally evolved to the equivalent people putting their fingers in their ears when someone tries to raise a bitter truth. The fact of the matter is that the lack of growth for Nintendo's biggest large-world franchise in a landscape where there's a clear hunger for large-world games is a very disconcerting phenomenon. Nintendo wouldn't be responding to that trend the way they are (by trumpeting how open world the new game is, and how your actions can shape the world) if they didn't see it that way, too.

 

[Scooter155]

This might be why people buy Skyrim but not Zelda.

Just want to caution you against using sales numbers as the sole quantifier of something's critical worth. Call of Duty and Madden are some of the best selling games in the world but I'd balk if someone tried to say they're objectively "better" than just about any Zelda game based on that.

Skyrim and its ilk are very different beast from Zelda too, Zelda's never been about mimicking other genres, and I'm glad for that.

 

[Astral Dog]

But isn't part of my argument that the addressable market for large-world games is much larger today, as demonstrated by Skyrim/Minecraft/et al, and that Zelda's sales should, if Nintendo is appropriately positioning the series, actually be stronger now than they were in the 80s and 90s?

Yes, yes it is



No one seems particularly interested in addressing this, though. It's always handwaved away with "but Zelda is nothing like those games" or "but Zelda is still selling 3-4 million copies, so nothing's wrong."

But I think this is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears when someone tells you a bitter truth. The fact of the matter is that the lack of growth for Nintendo's biggest large-world franchise in a landscape where there's a clear hunger for large-world games is a very disconcerting phenomenon, and Nintendo wouldn't be responding to that trend the way they are (by trumpeting how open world the new game is, and how your actions can shape the world) if they didn't see it that way, too.

Hmm, they couldnt make it too open world before, due to hardware limitations, so they focused on other things.
They arent going to remove the puzzles though, they are a part of the series since A link to the past.

hopefully Zelda U has a bigger focus on combat and exploration, but its not going to be too extreme.

 

[LegendofLex]

Just want to caution you against using sales numbers as the sole quantifier of something's critical worth.

I'm not talking about critical worth.

I'm talking about worth in the sense of "worth actually buying."

Without that worth, games don't get made.

Skyrim and its ilk are very different beast from Zelda too

When all you want to do is run around a large world fighting monsters and feeling like a badass, I don't think most people care about the differences. I don't think the average consumer discerns which games to buy in this same way--games like Skyrim didn't sell 20+ million copies a few years ago. It's all about doing the job the player wants, and in this case Skyrim was better at scratching the "large world" itch.

If you're going to get into mechanics, it's obviously very different. But most people don't look for "mechanics" when they buy games. There's a reason so many people were comparing the two prior to launch.

Hmm, they couldnt make it too open world before, due to hardware limitations, so they focused on other things.
They arent going to remove the puzzles though, they are a part of the series since A link to the past.

But that's classic bullshit, since many developers achieved larger and less fragmented worlds on the same or equivalent hardware.

 

[Scooter155]

I'm not talking about critical worth.

I'm talking about worth in the sense of "worth actually buying."

Without that worth, games don't get made.

When all you want to do is run around a large world fighting monsters and feeling like a badass, I don't think most people care about the differences. I don't think the average consumer discerns which games to buy in this same way--games like Skyrim didn't sell 20+ million copies a few years ago. It's all about doing the job the player wants, and in this case Skyrim was better at scratching the "large world" itch.

If you're going to get into mechanics, it's obviously very different. But most people don't look for "mechanics" when they buy games.

But that's classic bullshit, since many developers achieved larger and less fragmented worlds on the same or equivalent hardware.

OK, my mistake, you're talking about what Nintendo needs to do to increase sales, not just to keep Zelda "good" as far as diehards are concerned. Good point, but I still think they can accomplish that without aping other (in my opinion, lesser) games.

 

[LegendofLex]

OK, my mistake, you're talking about what Nintendo needs to do to increase sales, not just to keep Zelda "good" as far as diehards are concerned. Good point, but I still think they can accomplish that without aping other (in my opinion, lesser) games.

I don't think they should "ape" other games, either. When have I ever suggested that?

I think they should make the superior open world game, just like how Zelda was better than Ultima back in the day, even though it really only was vaguely superficially like Ultima in the end. (Zelda had Nintendo's arcade background to draw on, which made the game drastically differentiated from any other open world RPG--yes, RPG--at the time.)

The problem right now is that they might as well have not been trying to make a better large world game. People in general certainly haven't been seeing it that way.

Spoiler

it's funny how Nintendo's marketing guy misspelled role-playing in that flyer

 

[Asbear]

I hope this story is more removed from Zelda canon. By which I mean, I hope there's no triforce or master sword lore.

...and no Green tunic. I called it. Holler at me when the game comes out and I wasn't right.

 

[ibyea]

But isn't part of my argument that the addressable market for large-world games is much larger today, as demonstrated by Skyrim/Minecraft/et al, and that Zelda's sales should, if Nintendo is appropriately positioning the series, actually be stronger now than they were in the 80s and 90s?

Because they are not the same kind of games? As much as you trot out the similarities, there are enough significant differences that I don't play Skyrim.

 

[LegendofLex]

Because they are not the same kind of games? As much as you trot out the similarities, there are enough significant differences that I don't play Skyrim.

Of course not. Skyrim is all "deep and advanced computer role-playing game," no "fast action arcade hit."

Zelda was originally designed to be the best of both.

Again, read this, particularly the very end, where they spell out Zelda's genre in 100% explicit terms. It's a great insight to the series' actual roots, instead of secondhand perspectives from current Zelda fans. (Really interesting how they saw the save system as a way to "share the adventure with your friends.")

Hopefully that'll show that I'm not saying Zelda should copycat Skyrim; just that it should continue to improve on its actual original values?

 

[Asbear]

I'd prefer lore and small character episodes (think Zelda II or OoT) to narrative and "story."

I'm perfectly capable of using my own imagination to fill in the gaps, and it's not like video games have no satisfying "story content" outside of cutscenes and dialogue.

Yeah but it's limited how much story you can tell only through imagery in gameplay. I don't think, despite its creative strength, that Black Swan is everyone's cup of tea and IIRC didn't that game have text too?

Even gems like Shadow of the Colossus had dialogue and cutscenes. Otherwise it would've been too incoherent.

...and I hope you're not going to tell me how story emerges "through gameplay" that seems to a new trend. When we talk about story we're talking about something that conveys a pre-defined message that contains emotion and drama. We have to distinguish between what is narrative and what is the kind of story you tell your friends about when you when you went to the football game.

Sorry if I seemed patronising. I'm directing this as much towards everyone else because this "emerging storytelling" is kind of a thing that is slowly becoming a trend among gaming publicity and I think it's a big misconception if we're talking about "narrative" in games.

 

[LegendofLex]

Yeah but it's limited how much story you can tell only through imagery in gameplay. I don't think, despite its creative strength, that Black Swan is everyone's cup of tea and IIRC didn't that game have text too?

Sure. Obviously there shouldn't be no story whatsoever. It's just that games are a special medium where you don't really need a story to tie everything together all the time, since the player might prefer to just go off and do his/her own thing anyway (the GTA/Skyrim/Minecraft effect; plus, who didn't play Mario 64, OoT, etc. this way sometimes?).

...and I hope you're not going to tell me how story emerges "through gameplay" that seems to a new trend. When we talk about story we're talking about something that conveys a pre-defined message that contains emotion and drama.

"Courage and bravery will vanquish evil" is a pretty clear and pre-defined message that doesn't need to be communicated through narrative. You know how older games did this? They made the player feel adventurous and heroic and pitted them against dangerous evil things. When the player comes out on top, they literally feel triumphant. There's a kind of emotion and drama there.

Certainly not talking about the trendy "story through gameplay" feel-goody stuff, like Journey for example. More like the bare-bones good vs. evil type stuff found in the early Zeldas and other NES-era games. I think lore is important for giving the player actual context for their journey, but I'd differentiate lore from narrative.

 

[ReyVGM]

Well now that we're on the Western vs Japanese open world topic...

You think there are branching narrative paths? Maybe not for Link, but maybe for the other characters and environments?

ST is probably the only Zelda with multiple endings...and MM too, I guess.

Zelda 1 has two endings.
Zelda Ancient Stone Tablets has two endings also.
The Oracle games has two endings too.
The GBA A Link to the Past has two endings. Three if you count Four Swords which is included in the same package.

 

[NathanS]

And who is Malstrom?

The guy who made all the talking points LegendofLex is using.

 

[Mael]

The guy who made all the talking points LegendofLex is using.

The guy is kind of a joke in some topic he address but I don't think he's that wrong in the evaluation of Zelda and some other.
While we can debate all day that Zelda was never about puzzle or not, it's quite clear that there's something missing in current Zelda that was there in the old ones.
The template from Alttp is clearly wearing thin at this point and SS did nothing to address the issue.
It's pretty telling that something like Xenoblade managed to do pretty much everything some of us ever wanted in a Zelda game.
Skyrim is clearly more popular than Zelda right now for the very same reason.
I don't think it's too much to ask for a little adventure and challenge in sequels to Legend of Zelda or Adventure of Link.
Maelstrom is absolutely right on 1 thing though : Zelda II was never the black sheep of the series, it was very well received at the time of release.
Whether Zelda need to follow the template of Zelda 1, 2 or 3 though is more debatable.

 

[zeldablue]

Zelda U should not be about removing story or cutscenes, just pacing them appropriately,dont dump most of the story at the first few hours, or at the end, and remove the useless tutorials and handholding.

They always do most of the story at the beginning, middle and end, many hours with nothing happening, Skyward Sword was the worst on this aspect.

Yeah I hate that. SS and ALBW are both following that trend.

I'd prefer lore and small character episodes (think Zelda II or OoT) to narrative and "story."

I'm perfectly capable of using my own imagination to fill in the gaps, and it's not like video games have no satisfying "story content" outside of cutscenes and dialogue.

I want story in everything. I want enemy stories, story through gameplay, story for Link, stories for NPCs, story for items, back stories for dungeons...

Everything! @___@

Bring back the gossip stones so I can spread some more Zelda rumors around.

And obviously don't shove all the story into cutscenes.

Oh and I want 2 false endings...or something actually surprising to happen in the main plot.

 

[gamergirly]

Yeah I hate that. SS and ALBW are both following that trend.



I want story in everything. I want enemy stories, story through gameplay, story for Link, stories for NPCs, story for items, back stories for dungeons...

Everything! @___@

Bring back the gossip stones so I can spread some more Zelda rumors around.

And obviously don't shove all the story into cutscenes.

Birds....talk to me now

 

[rhandino]

I would LOVE that when you start the game they gave you all the exposition, Zelda I style, and then GO! ADVENTURE! without any more help just for the resulting meltdowns that would bring

Spoiler

And maybe the awesome feeling of going to explore an unknown land with unknown mechanics

 

[NathanS]

It's pretty telling that something like Xenoblade managed to do pretty much everything some of us ever wanted in a Zelda game.
Skyrim is clearly more popular than Zelda right now for the very same reason.
I don't think it's too much to ask for a little adventure and challenge in sequels to Legend .

Both of those are far more driveled from say Ultimia which was up to 4 by the time Zelda came out. Malstrom is all about avoiding anything concrete expect for sale numbers (and even then he keeps trying to find ways to show OoT and TP selling well doesn't count because he doesn't like them.) It's way he insist mechanics aren't worth talking about, they are firm, real things that lead to the emotions he talks about, but by denying facts he can re-cast history to whatever fits his arguments.

Don't both looking at the what you do in any Zelda game, or the other games he compares them to, they both have green and make you feel happy so they are totally the same! Any argument rooted in his works is useless mindless fluff.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

But isn't part of my argument that the addressable market for large-world games is much larger today, as demonstrated by Skyrim/Minecraft/et al, and that Zelda's sales should, if Nintendo is appropriately positioning the series, actually be stronger now than they were in the 80s and 90s?

Again, this is a very flawed point to make.
Why would anyone want to address it?
Growth within the VG consumer population doesn't guarantee (like, at all) that an ancient 28 year old franchise like Zelda is always going to appeal to newcomers or older players like other games (that are either significantly different or more mainstream) do.
You're working with some really weird logic here, and I have to question why you feel that it's such a huge trump card in this discussion.
The gaming population has increased significantly since Super Mario Bros. on the NES yet no modern Mario game (2D or 3D) has managed to outsell it; even NSMBWii didn't manage to outsell it or move past the NES's total LTD. Should Nintendo rethink their entire strategy for these games and start producing simple 8-bit Megman 10-esque sequels to that game?

Also, it doesn't matter how much you want to ignore it; Minecraft and Skyrim are in completely different genres from Zelda (and each other), people buy them for a lot of reasons and most of those have to do with the gameplay elements that are unique to their respective genre. Just because they all have over worlds doesn't mean that they effect each other in any significant way. What you're' suggesting sounds as ridiculous as saying 3D Mario effects the sales of the Uncharted series because they both involve jumping and shooting projectiles in a 3rd person view.
Plus, you're ignoring the fact that some genres are generally more niche than others. It's quite possible (going by the numbers) that sandbox survival games and action-rpgs are much more popular than Zelda-like action adventures games due to their very design.

Again, stop trying to create a narrative that doesn't exist. If you like the pre-Aonuma games better than the post-Aonuma games that's perfectly fine, but there is no reason to keep peddling this dumb argument in every LoZ thread.

 

[Mael]

Both of those are far more driveled from say Ultimia which was up to 4 by the time Zelda came out. Malstrom is all about avoiding anything concrete expect for sale numbers (and even then he keeps trying to find ways to show OoT and TP selling well doesn't count because he doesn't like them.) It's way he insist mechanics aren't worth talking about, they are firm, real things that lead to the emotions he talks about, but by denying facts he can re-cast history to whatever fits his arguments.

Don't both looking at the what you do in any Zelda game, or the other games he compares them to, they both have green and make you feel happy so they are totally the same! Any argument rooted in his works is useless mindless fluff.

As I said, he's not perfect.
He's pretty indepth when talking about content in Ultima and all.
However he doesn't make the claim that Xenoblade or Skyrim (or even Souls series) now fill a niche that Zelda should fill.
That's my (and some of his readers apparently) point.
He's not ignoring that OoT or TP are the high point of the series, that's pretty much his argument to crucify WW or SS.
His argument is more that the sales doesn't reflect the hype behind them (seriously OoT "best game ever" should have sold more and Tp was basically what everyone, Nintendo included, expected to save the failing GC).
He found that the 2 first Zelda are more important to the series in the same ways that he prefers 2D Mario.
Kinda like his Birdmen essay, it doesn't hold up to academia standard or something but it's far from crap considering what game journalism is.
Heck something like his line of article is EXACTLY what I would have expected from the media. I mean Nintendo strategy through the lens of Christensen's disruption!
It's a very good starting point!

I can't possibly argue against Zelda going to the root of Zelda 1 or 2 because I'm pretty much for that since if I wanna play something like Zelda 3 I've got every single Zelda game after that to chose from.
The way I view Zelda, it's pretty much Metroid but top down (or in a fantasy setting if you will).
Or more accurately I view Metroid as a space Zelda.
I have no problem with Metroid (except for that one) and I really would prefer Zelda to go that way too.

 

[Easy_D]

So how about that Epona huh, avoiding trees and stuff? So cool. I hope Loftwings are in somehow. Or a descendant of Groose

 

[MisterGrey3000]

So how about that Epona huh, avoiding trees and stuff? So cool. I hope Loftwings are in somehow. Or a descendant of Groose

lol
Well...I mean...if we actually had some significant things to talk about like the story/items/dungeons/whatnot I'd probably be all over that right now, but all we've really got is the overworld. Which, as far as I can tell, is just a big green place that might have Zelda locations and dungeons in it; there isn't much you can speculate about past how big the world is gonna be.

Though tbf, I do love the mechanics that they're introducing with Epona; it kind of makes me hope that we'll get more story events (like the ones in TP) that make good use of her mechanics.

 

[wrowa]

His argument is more that the sales doesn't reflect the hype behind them (seriously OoT "best game ever" should have sold more and Tp was basically what everyone, Nintendo included, expected to save the failing GC).

How does that even make sense, considering that Nintendo released TP on the Wii to push that system's sales? By the time TP was supposed to come out the generation was already at its end. Even if they would have released the title in 2005 as planned, it would have been way too late to change anything about the fortune of the Gamecube. Saying that Nintendo expected Twilight Princess to "save the failing GC" is rather silly, since it was an impossibility at that point.

Saying that sales numbers didn't reflect the hype behind those games is silly in itself, actually. It ignores the reality of the time those games were released in. Ocarina of Time sold more than 7 million copies, when the best-selling PlayStation 1 game sold roughly 11 million copies on a userbase three to four times the size of the N64's. That's nothing but insanely successful. Twilight Princess is a very similar story that is one of the most successful games of its time that can easily hold its own on other games released on competing platforms.

These days, it might not be as uncommon as in the past that games reach sales numbers as high or even higher. The industry is a very different one by now, after all. You've got several AAA games every year that have a higher budget than everything produced in the 90's combined and which sell millions upon millions every year, you've got digital sales that help games selling for an extended period of time.

Of course, you can criticize that Zelda doesn't sell as well as Mario or other Nintendo franchises. But even then - what's the point of that observation? Zelda in its very core is much more core-focused franchise that will never have the wide appeal of a Mario game that literally everyone can pick up. You can't make Zelda into such a game either, since that would mean betraying the very existence of what Zelda is.

Zelda is facing a difficult future, however, quite simply because it's a franchise that is very expensive to produce and yet not as easy to pick up as other Nintendo games, which makes it difficult to sell enough copies in a time of swindling market shares of Nintendo consoles.

 

[Zero²]

Which, as far as I can tell, is just a big green place that might have Zelda locations and dungeons in it; there isn't much you can speculate about past how big the world is gonna be.

Well we got a look at new gameplay mechanics, like the bow bullet-time. And we know now for sure that the E3 trailer was indeed gameplay just with a developer camera.

Spoiler

Which people said it was bullshit

We got a small piece of soundtrack, probably unfinished, but its there anyway. Might be a clue to how and which instruments they will use most, or what kind or music they are going for...
Its not everyday we got to take a look at Zelda's raw gameplay this early, so it will be really fun to compare with the end product they will hopefully deliver at the end of this year.

 

[Effect]

I used to be one that was okay with non-voice acting in Zelda but the more I think about this new game, watch the gameplay footage and look at Xenoblade Chronicles X the more I feel that needs to finally change with Zelda Wii U. It's necessary I feel. People fear a repeat of Metroid Other M. I do as well but I also remember Kid Icarus Uprising, Xenoblade Chronicles and The Last Story. The voice acting was well done in all of those games. Now we have Code Name: S.T.E.A.M that seems okay so far but we've just gotten clips and what we had in Fire Emblem Awakening was okay. Other M's problem on this front was Sakamoto wanting the voice work to directly mirror the writing (which wasn't good) and with no real localization of the content. At least that is my understanding why we got the Samus we did and the baby talk. There has been more good voice acting out of Nintendo as a whole then bad. It's Zelda's turn now and this is the perfect game for it. Anouma and crew just have to work with Treehouse and others to make sure it flows well and good voice actors picked for the various languages.

To make people happy they could allow you to pick various voices (from high to deep) for Link, especially if his dialogue overall is less then all the other characters.

 

[Ahnez]

I wonder if the Hylian voice act idea is still possible lol

 

[Mael]

How does that even make sense, considering that Nintendo released TP on the Wii to push that system's sales? By the time TP was supposed to come out the generation was already at its end. Even if they would have released the title in 2005 as planned, it would have been way too late to change anything about the fortune of the Gamecube. Saying that Nintendo expected Twilight Princess to "save the failing GC" is rather silly, since it was an impossibility at that point.

Did you know that TP wasn't originally planned to release on Wii?
A good place to start would be the Iwata ask for Twilight Princess, where they discuss the various stage of the game.
You'll find that they decided to move the project after they realized that GC wasn't going to be saved by Zelda.

Saying that sales numbers didn't reflect the hype behind those games is silly in itself, actually. It ignores the reality of the time those games were released in. Ocarina of Time sold more than 7 million copies, when the best-selling PlayStation 1 game sold roughly 11 million copies on a userbase three to four times the size of the N64's. That's nothing but insanely successful. Twilight Princess is a very similar story that is one of the most successful games of its time that can easily hold its own on other games released on competing platforms.

OoT is regularly cited as the best game ever.
the best selling game on n64 is Super Mario 64 (also best selling game of the generation).
I am not saying that OoT or TP did badly AT ALL.
I'm saying if the market thing that they're the best games ever they should have sold more.

These days, it might not be as uncommon as in the past that games reach sales numbers as high or even higher. The industry is a very different one by now, after all. You've got several AAA games every year that have a higher budget than everything produced in the 90's combined and which sell millions upon millions every year, you've got digital sales that help games selling for an extended period of time.

The problem is always the same, Nintendo's software is not just selling games but selling their hardware.
their whole business model revolves around people buying software on their platform, if Zelda can't bring new players who wouldn't be interested in the rest of their portfolio it's better dead (financially speaking, I know I'd prefer it limping than dead).
If more people come for Starfox than Zelda, then it's time to ditch Zelda and bring the fox back. Heck that's pretty much why Bayonetta is not that much of a risk for them compared to say DKCTF.
Interestingly packaged goods manage to be surprisingly efficient for them or ATVI (see the amiibos/skylanders stuffs as well as plastic guitar stuffs of old).
heck Skylanders is one ATVI most profitable property right now, so the idea that you can't make money without absurd budgets and marketing is flat out wrong (heck Nintendo showed us last gen how wrong that was)

Of course, you can criticize that Zelda doesn't sell as well as Mario or other Nintendo franchises. But even then - what's the point of that observation? Zelda in its very core is much more core-focused franchise that will never have the wide appeal of a Mario game that literally everyone can pick up. You can't make Zelda into such a game either, since that would mean betraying the very existence of what Zelda is.

Zelda is one of Nintendo's best selling franchise, it's up there with 3D Mario (while not on the level of SSB, Mario Kart, Wii___, etc).
It's common sense to look at the best selling part and see what was right or wrong.
Zelda 1 sold surprisingly well considering the state of the market at the time. OoT and TP did too. Looking at these 3 as well as how more successful properties manage to broaden their base is not stupid at all.
Heck that's what they did for Mario Kart and it didn't go that bad after the rather disappointing GC episode.
Who cares about the essence of the franchise, we've already got plenty of experiment anyway. We've got Crossbow training, Zelda 4 Swords, 4 Swords+...
Apart from the 1rst one they're all even part of the canon!
As long as the game is good, no one will care that much.

Zelda is facing a difficult future, however, quite simply because it's a franchise that is very expensive to produce and yet not as easy to pick up as other Nintendo games, which makes it difficult to sell enough copies in a time of swindling market shares of Nintendo consoles.

Again Skyrim and other games manage to be way more arcane than your usual Zelda and they do better.
The issue is not making them more accessible, this had disastrous effect on all Zelda games between Wind Waker and SS where they finally remembered that their customers are not drooling morons(to an extent).
the issue Zelda have is really that they keep putting inside what the customer base don't expect and don't like.
The message was really clear with WW, that's even why we got TP!
It's safe to say that with this one they got the message about what we thought of SS or the DS games too.

 

[balgajo]

Me too...



Yep. I forgot to tell the parents that the Ordonian kids were alive. You also see Rusl beaten up by monsters with Uli tending to him.

Go to the bar before beating Lakebed Temple and the Resistance group will make fun of your clothes. They think you're being really stupid for dressing like the hero. This is before Telma introduces you. They apologize later for misjudging you.

I always learn a few things every time I replay Twilight Princess.


About the discussion, internet was crazy with Twilight Princess hype.
http://www.google.com.br/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F09v5sg4%2C%20%2Fm%2F05gg9s%2C%20%2Fm%2F0t51nk0&cmpt=q
Also, Zelda search volume reached it's maximum during TP hype.
http://www.google.com.br/trends/explore#q=zelda

 

[foxuzamaki]

Did you know that TP wasn't originally planned to release on Wii?
A good place to start would be the Iwata ask for Twilight Princess, where they discuss the various stage of the game.
You'll find that they decided to move the project after they realized that GC wasn't going to be saved by Zelda.




OoT is regularly cited as the best game ever.
the best selling game on n64 is Super Mario 64 (also best selling game of the generation).
I am not saying that OoT or TP did badly AT ALL.
I'm saying if the market thing that they're the best games ever they should have sold more.



The problem is always the same, Nintendo's software is not just selling games but selling their hardware.
their whole business model revolves around people buying software on their platform, if Zelda can't bring new players who wouldn't be interested in the rest of their portfolio it's better dead (financially speaking, I know I'd prefer it limping than dead).
If more people come for Starfox than Zelda, then it's time to ditch Zelda and bring the fox back. Heck that's pretty much why Bayonetta is not that much of a risk for them compared to say DKCTF.
Interestingly packaged goods manage to be surprisingly efficient for them or ATVI (see the amiibos/skylanders stuffs as well as plastic guitar stuffs of old).
heck Skylanders is one ATVI most profitable property right now, so the idea that you can't make money without absurd budgets and marketing is flat out wrong (heck Nintendo showed us last gen how wrong that was)



Zelda is one of Nintendo's best selling franchise, it's up there with 3D Mario (while not on the level of SSB, Mario Kart, Wii___, etc).
It's common sense to look at the best selling part and see what was right or wrong.
Zelda 1 sold surprisingly well considering the state of the market at the time. OoT and TP did too. Looking at these 3 as well as how more successful properties manage to broaden their base is not stupid at all.
Heck that's what they did for Mario Kart and it didn't go that bad after the rather disappointing GC episode.
Who cares about the essence of the franchise, we've already got plenty of experiment anyway. We've got Crossbow training, Zelda 4 Swords, 4 Swords+...
Apart from the 1rst one they're all even part of the canon!
As long as the game is good, no one will care that much.


Again Skyrim and other games manage to be way more arcane than your usual Zelda and they do better.
The issue is not making them more accessible, this had disastrous effect on all Zelda games between Wind Waker and SS where they finally remembered that their customers are not drooling morons(to an extent).
the issue Zelda have is really that they keep putting inside what the customer base don't expect and don't like.
The message was really clear with WW, that's even why we got TP!
It's safe to say that with this one they got the message about what we thought of SS or the DS games too.

Stop, TP was not meant to save the gamecube, do you know how game development works, even without the delays the game had, it was too late in the GCN's life to "save" it.
Twilght Princess was a game made to benefit the gamers that were already there on the system, not to suddenly get new ones.

 

[Easy_D]

Stop, TP was not meant to save the gamecube, do you know how game development works, even without the delays the game had, it was too late in the GCN's life to "save" it.
Twilght Princess was a game made to benefit the gamers that were already there on the system, not to suddenly get new ones.

I don't even understand why they would want to "Save" the Gamecube when Wii development was already heavily underway at the time. Coincidentally also the reason they decided to port it!

"Hey why not use this as good as finished game and add Wii remote controls to it to show our core gamers what motion controls can do!". I think a lot of what Nintendo does can actually be explained by a "They felt like doing it". They strike me as the kind of (good) crazy company to just do whatever they feel like.