The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Wii U / Switch

[Rummy]

And it's equally easy to lean back and armchair praise Nintendo as if everything they do is just because they're amazing and fantastic and care so much about us, when the reality will actually be infinitely more complicated.

 

The arguments on that go both ways. I was merely here to have a discussion and get people's thoughts to expand my own, as gamers and consumers, on where they find their lines drawn in regards to delays - using this game and this thread and its consoles as a relevant place to do that(somewhat unique, barring the similarity to TP/Wii/GC). Nobody's going to be right or wrong on what's an acceptable delay, I just wanted to know what people's personal thoughts and lines were.

 

Could I do a better job than Nintendo? You know what, yes maybe. Could I do a worse job? Yes, maybe too. It's irrelevant, I was aiming for the consumers' point of view, not theirs. I'm not trying to run their company - I'm trying to see where my thoughts and opinions lie in relation to those of people I'd have considered to be of a fairly similar(tho with a positive amount of variance imo) position.

 

Apparently it's too much to ask though. I thought it'd foster some discussion. Even for a brief moment I actually thought Ashley's post was going to lead us onto something where we consider what happens next and have fun speculations on reusing assets, or reusing design, or considering what can be learnt or taken forward, or maybe even what might not.

 

But again - it's equally easy to lean back and armchair praise Nintendo as if everything they do is just because they're amazing and fantastic and care so much about us, when the reality will actually be infinitely more complicated. Even if it's not the actual point.

[Shorty]

Funny how often people decide that disagreeing does not constitute as discussion! I thought giving my thoughts was exactly what I was doing. Would you rather I just nodded and agreed with you?

[dazzybee]

And who's praising nintendo? People just seem to be accepting it because, you know, it's not a big deal...

 

Ads for where do we draw the line, I mean, other than maybe being annoyed because I'm eager, there is no line for me. It's ready when it's ready.

 

Actually, I think the line for me is when it is arbitrary. Like Rhythm Heaven's delay in europe and Picross 2. IO understand when big games get moved to fill release gaps (Didn't tropical freeze get moved for this reason) but Rhythm Heaven and Picross 2 are very small games that aren't going to do much.

[Retro_Link]

If delays were a regular occurrence for Nintendo, then sure, call them out on it. But it's something that happens rarely.

 

Nintendo are obviously making a very difficult transition at the moment. It started with HD development and has continued throughout the life of the Wii U.

 

As I said earlier, Zelda's problematic development is synonymous with Nintendo's own struggles. To me Zelda feels like Nintendo growing/learning and figuring out what it takes to fight in todays modern gaming landscape.

[Ronnie]

The game is finished, it's just localisation that's taking longer than expected (according to ER) for such a big game. It's pointless getting pissed off at Nintendo because it's always been "2017", it was never promised for March.

[Grazza]

Absolutely, but I'm confident Nintendo will fill their world with quality. When I read "bigger than Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword and Wind Waker combined" I didn't read in terms of land mass, I figured in terms of content, which is hugely exciting

 

That's almost certainly not true though. For this game to have more content than the sum of WW, TP and Skyward Sword's dungeons and sidequests would be hugely inefficient.

 

In terms of actual map size, in theory I don't see the need to go much beyond Wind Waker. However, this game has huge mountains (and thankfully so). It could be that the mountains are so tall, that dictates the size of the land mass, as having them too close together would seem unnatural.

 

Regarding delays, I tend to side with @Rummy. Development time is not always about needing extra hours to polish a game. It's often tactical too, especially with Nintendo, as they unfortunately often have consoles that are considered flops. It's no coincidence that the two most controversial delays were the GameCube's 2nd Zelda (Twilight Princess) and the Wii U's (Breath of the Wild) - in other words, their two biggest hardware "flops".

 

Nintendo knows the rough amount of time needed to make a game. All the basics of BotW would have been mapped out at the beginning - overworld, dungeons, enemies. For Aonuma to state, in June 2014, that the game would be released in 2015, it must have been roughly on track for that.

 

That's not to say I'm sitting here furious - I've actually zoned-out about the game - but I think if you fail to get a Zelda out in due time, you miss out on people who are particularly invested in that specific console, or those who were particularly enthused at time of unveiling. Historically though, this tactic does work, and so we just have to hope the finished product will be all that it might once have been.

[Ronnie]

That's almost certainly not true though. For this game to have more content than the sum of WW, TP and Skyward Sword's dungeons and sidequests would be hugely inefficient.

 

I don't see how you can make that assumption, and I'm not even sure I understand what assumption you're making. From the report Emily Rogers claims the game is bigger than their last three console games combined. It's tough to read much more into that.

 

Nintendo knows the rough amount of time needed to make a game. All the basics of BotW would have been mapped out at the beginning - overworld, dungeons, enemies. For Aonuma to state, in June 2014, that the game would be released in 2015, it must have been roughly on track for that.

 

That's not to say I'm sitting here furious - I've actually zoned-out about the game - but I think if you fail to get a Zelda out in due time, you miss out on people who are particularly invested in that specific console, or those who were particularly enthused at time of unveiling. Historically though, this tactic does work, and so we just have to hope the finished product will be all that it might once have been.

 

The game is done, the localisation is taking longer and fill apparently wrap up by the end of December, then testing and QA can begin.

[Grazza]

I don't see how you can make that assumption, and I'm not even sure I understand what assumption you're making. From the report Emily Rogers claims the game is bigger than their last three console games combined. It's tough to read much more into that.

 

The only assumption I'm making is that "bigger" = map size/land mass. You were the one who suggested it might mean content, which I'm just pointing out would be highly unlikely, even undesirable.

[Ealdst]

To answer the question about where the line is, for me there isn't one. If a game is delayed by 10 years then whether or not I still buy it depends on the quality of the finished product and whether or not I have the relevant hardware at that time. It may be frustrating when a game I'm anticipating is delayed but there's always other things to keep you occupied in the meantime, it's not going to impact on a purchase decision for me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Retro_Link]

I just want a Eagle/Owl to fly around this giant world on.

[Ronnie]

The only assumption I'm making is that "bigger" = map size/land mass. You were the one who suggested it might mean content, which I'm just pointing out would be highly unlikely, even undesirable.

 

The full quote:

 

Breath of the Wild is one of the largest games — if not the largest game — that Nintendo has ever developed. It’s probably larger than Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and Wind Waker combined.

 

“A very ambitious game, maybe even too much,” claimed one particular source.

 

We've known how huge the game world is for months, why would she feel the need to tell us about the land mass again? She's obviously talking about the entire game itself, content and everything. I don't see how you can think it "unlikely" that she's referring to content. She said "largest game", not "largest area".

[Grazza]

The full quote:

 

 

 

We've known how huge the game world is for months, why would she feel the need to tell us about the land mass again? She's obviously talking about the entire game itself, content and everything. I don't see how you can think it "unlikely" that she's referring to content. She said "largest game", not "largest area".

 

Because dungeons are part of the content and to have more full-size dungeons that WW, TP and SS would be utterly ridiculous.

[Ronnie]

Because dungeons are part of the content and to have more full-size dungeons that WW, TP and SS would be utterly ridiculous.

 

I think you're reading too much into things. And regardless, there are more than 100 Shrines of varying sizes and complexities, in addition to the regular dungeons and side quests.

 

She's talking about the size of the game, not the size of the land mass. It's obvious because she says "it's a huge game, and localisation of all the NPCs and quests is taking a long time", not "it's a huge land mass".

[punio75]

I think a delay can HURT.

For example, you can't help but feel The Last Guardian is heading for a fall:

- some of these initially interested will have moved on

- it cannot now meet many peoples expectations the hype has built over the years (it may well lose itself in the Christmas rush too)

 

For many of us on here who are Zelda fanatics there is past evidence that they DO get it right with time- so I'm pretty cool about the situation!

[Rummy]

Funny how often people decide that disagreeing does not constitute as discussion! I thought giving my thoughts was exactly what I was doing. Would you rather I just nodded and agreed with you?

 

I've no issue on disagreement! It's what makes discussion what it is! My issue is that for some reason few seem to want to answer my question. Retro did - he'd give Last Guardian a year, or if it was delayed for even 7 years would possibly still come back to it if it was good enough. I'm curious for views like that. I can't go up to a stranger in the street, explain the general situation with BotW/WiiU/Switch(which imo isn't all that general, plus relation to TP/Wii) and ask them their thoughts without some of it probably being lost in translation. There's very few people I can imagine that I have in my social circles that I can pose the question to or have the discussion with either - so I end up asking it here hoping to broaden my horizons. There's no line for @dazzybee, but I'd still ask him - would you take BotW in a year? 2? 3? 5? 10? Surely the line is somewhere. What happens if you get a 2014-esque game in 2018?

 

I asked where people draw the lines on what they find acceptable for delays. Instead it then became a point of how easy I think it is or how well I'd do at running Nintendo. Yes I hold views on what they do business-wise that I disagree with; but I honestly didn't want to go there with this. I'd even have elaborated much more on that in response but I really don't want this to go off Zelda BotW. I'm just curious on where other people draw their lines on where the acceptability of delay for this particular situation is? I could tell you in much more detail what Nintendo should or shouldn't do, imo, but it moves off thread relevance. I could also bring up parallel examples that maybe reference competition and flagship titles. However I don't want this to get off topic to a classic Sony discussion derailment and have tried to keep it to Zelda/BotW given that it's somewhat unique in itself. When, ever, has a flagship title come after actual console production is pretty much officially ceased? Is it acceptable or reasonable to people here as consumers given the title in question(I'd daresay Zelda holds a fairly unique weight to it)?. If neither of those hold contextual relevance then where, do you feel, holds an acceptable level of delay for a game like Zelda for you? I'm not asking anyone to nod and agree with me(as it is, as stated, all a matter of opinion) but I would appreciate if you'd answer the question. What's acceptable for you in terms of delay? Iirc this game was announced back in early(January even maybe?) 2013 as being in development - is 4-5 years an acceptable amount of time from announcement to release, especially given a context of the originally intended console itself having almost a shorter lifespan?

 

As I'm apparently having an issue with a supposed disagreement - where you actually draw your own lines in terms of delays, @Shorty? For me the context of delay for BotW is related to the WiiU lifespan itself, although I also think a 4+ year announcement to release for Zelda form Nintendo is kinda unusual regardless, but it's been especially noticeable with the WiiU, imo.

 

The game is finished, it's just localisation that's taking longer than expected (according to ER) for such a big game. It's pointless getting pissed off at Nintendo because it's always been "2017"[b/], it was never promised for March.

 

Tell that to the "guaranteed" 2016 release announcement. Not the first announcement on date either, mind.

 

I think a delay can HURT.

For example, you can't help but feel The Last Guardian is heading for a fall:

- some of these initially interested will have moved on

- it cannot now meet many peoples expectations the hype has built over the years (it may well lose itself in the Christmas rush too)

 

For many of us on here who are Zelda fanatics there is past evidence that they DO get it right with time- so I'm pretty cool about the situation!

 

I consider myself here and the implications(best point of reference I have) interesting. Do I buy it on WiiU? Yes, because I dislike the repeat of TP. Do I buy it on Switch? Well, that's assuming I buy a switch, and in such a case I might still get this on WiiU before I get a Switch(possibly hurting both Switch and Switch version sales). Do I buy BotW and a Switch? Well, that's the real ultimate maybe but how will I feel knowing I might not see another Zelda on the system or if I do it will be after its lifecycle and its ceasing production?

 

If I'd had a Zelda on my WiiU 3-4 years ago and the Switch came out with a new brand new one I couldn't get elsewhere would I be likely to buy it? Far much more so I imagine, as it'd be something I can't experience elsewhere. I held off on buying a WiiU(and didn't until after Zelda was 'officially' in development) and given the experience it gave me and the lack of Zelda until this point - I'd wonder whether to get Switch off the bat. Even if I do, I will most likely NOT get BotW-Switch unless there was some super good offer to WiiU version owners.

 

The thing is that's just me though. I realise I'm just one person.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Rummy

[Shorty]

There's no line for me drawn between "will get" and "will not get", although there might be lines for "annoyed" or "doubtful that it's ever coming out". The line depends on the quality of the game and who is making it.

 

For example, lets say a new Sonic game is announced. I'm going to lose interest if its delayed by 6 months because they have a pretty good track record of letting me down. I probably won't get annoyed, just forget about it and let the release date sneak up.

 

Then lets say Nintendo announces a new side-scrolling Metroid game on 3DS. They could delay that game basically indefinitely and I would only get more excited over time. Maybe there would be a line, like 2.5 years, but I don't think they would hit it... and if they did I'd only be a bit disappointed, not swear off the game or anything.

 

This Zelda falls into that category for me. I'm not actively waiting for it. I didn't buy the Wii U just for it (although it was a contributing factor). If it takes another year I'll just look forward to it more.

 

PS I want to talk about whether these assets could be reused for a MM style sequel too :p but lets clear the air here.

[dazzybee]

@Rummy I'd get Zelda in 2, 5, 10, 20 years probably. But ultimately, other than maybe being annoyed because I'm impatient about thing, games getting delayed, my line is how good is that game when it comes out. That's it. By that point I don't care about the delay.

 

Nintendo need to think about a Majoras Mask style sequel to it using the engine though. Surely!!

[Grazza]

What happens if you get a 2014-esque game in 2018?

 

This has made me think of another issue... Generational leaps used to be really obvious. For instance, A Link to the Past simply couldn't have been delayed until N64 - it would definitely have been far, far too late. Even when we moved onto polygons, delaying Ocarina of Time until the GameCube would been completely wasteful considering the added power the GC offered.

 

Nintendo, however, is the only manufacturer who has occasionally made consoles that seem almost exactly like their predecessors in terms of graphics and power, namely Wii compared to GC and (possibly) Switch compared to Wii U. With this in mind, Nintendo's two biggest Zelda delays are a bit more understandable in terms of the games being able to span generations, even though it brings a fair amount of annoyance with it. Unfortunately, they can get away with delays that would be a lot more blatant (even just visually) if Nintendo took more traditional leaps with hardware.

 

Not sitting on a side of an argument here; it was just a thought.

[Serebii]

I think a delay can HURT.

For example, you can't help but feel The Last Guardian is heading for a fall:

- some of these initially interested will have moved on

- it cannot now meet many peoples expectations the hype has built over the years (it may well lose itself in the Christmas rush too)

 

For many of us on here who are Zelda fanatics there is past evidence that they DO get it right with time- so I'm pretty cool about the situation!

Come on, it's just a couple of months. It's not like Last Guardian's 10 year delay

[Cube]

I think a delay of Zelda would be more harmful to the Switch's launch than to Zelda itself.

[Shorty]

Surely the line is somewhere. What happens if you get a 2014-esque game in 2018?

 

Wind Waker is a 2002 game, but if it came out today in HD I wouldn't be like "huh, did you start this 15-16 years ago?", I can honestly say nothing about it would feel like an old game. Don't you think? When Zelda gets it right, it transcends generational gaps and technological limitations. I could almost say the same for MM if the overworld didn't hold it back a bit.

 

I can't say the same for TP and SS, however.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Shorty

[Retro_Link]

PS I want to talk about whether these assets could be reused for a MM style sequel too :p but lets clear the air here.

I'm curious as to where they'd go with a sequel. They've already developed the biggest open-world Hyrule, full of different geological locations and weather... how do you do a sequel to that?

 

Majora's Mask did a parallel dimension like formula and mixed up the assets - you can't really take that approach again... I mean, you can, but you'd get called out on it.

 

Other franchises like GTA, Assassins Creed have the advantage of being able to change location when they repeat the formula, Mass Effect can go to different planets. Where as with Zelda you have that same 'Middle Earth' like fantasy landscape, and perhaps that's part of the reason why it's tough to make sequels in the series, and why the likes of Twilight Princess are just telling the same story again.

 

With Zelda, we've done the sea, we've done the sky... in what other ways do you re-use the assets you've built for Breath of the Wild?

 

Yes Link's Awakening did it, but a huge Island habitat to explore could be fun.

 

Or do you take a DLC/Season Pass like approach, and for example, bring Winter to Hyrule. Same Breath of the Wild landscape, but this time the entire kingdom is under a foot of snow, waterfalls and lakes have frozen over, habitats and species are struggling as a result, and there's a new icy big bad in town. Plus who doesn't want to ice skate on a frozen lake in Castle Town.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Retro_Link

[Ashley]

Come on, it's just a couple of months. It's not like Last Guardian's 10 year delay

 

Actually it's only been delayed for a few years. It's just been in development for 9

[killthenet]

Just saw a comment elsewhere pointing out that hardly any of Nintendo's games require huge patches for bug fixing like a lot of other AAA games do. Looking through my Wii U data 3D World, Wind Waker and Twilight Princess have never been patched and so were released in fully working order, and the games that do have patches either add new content (Mario Kart 8's 200cc mode and Smash Bros. new characters and modes) or are tiny patches of 30mb - 300mb to fix bugs, and most of those are on early Wii U titles like New Super Mario Bros U and Nintendo Land.

 

In an age of multi gigabyte day one patches you have to hand it to Nintendo for their dedication to releasing a fully working product. Obviously it should be the norm for games to actually work out of the box and we shouldn't need to thank companies for doing what they're supposed to do, but its refreshing that Nintendo are so committed to quality.

[Ashley]

You know what I don't think it should be necessary as much as it is something to aspire to, but I'm too tired to type out a long response right now.