Zelda Minus Nintendo

So long as it is the exact same team, I think it would be a good thing. Considering Zelda was the only concrete reason I bought the Wii, it would mean I wouldn't have to put up with a console I don't like.

Originally Posted by Veyrael

No, I thought they were on the Pokemon team.

In all seriousness, though, that's kind of a common sense thing- if they're a Zelda writer, then they must be on the Zelda team, otherwise they wouldn't be a Zelda writer.

I think he was asking if it's the same Zelda team.

Veyrael, you make me laugh because of how you just add everything you can to contradict everyone else. I just don't want to add anytihng new to the thread now because I can see you quoting it and then the first few words of your post being "Not necessarily" or "no."

Anyway, if it was just the Zelda Team still, I don't see any other difference there could be besides controls and lack of nintendo references. Also, I doubt there would be any cussing at all added. I really dislike the idea though. I mean, it would probably gain more new fanbase across the board of video game systems, but it would lose a lot of Nintendo fans who only, persay, have a Nintendo system. And even if more they gained more fans with, for example, Playstation, if the said person only has playstation, and not a nintendo system, then they probably wouldn't purchase the older games.

It just doesn't seem realistic enough to me just yet. Sad to say it, but Zelda isn't as big as every fan thinks yet.

Originally Posted by n88r

Veyrael, you make me laugh because of how you just add everything you can to contradict everyone else. I just don't want to add anytihng new to the thread now because I can see you quoting it and then the first few words of your post being "Not necessarily" or "no."

Anyway, if it was just the Zelda Team still, I don't see any other difference there could be besides controls and lack of nintendo references. Also, I doubt there would be any cussing at all added. I really dislike the idea though. I mean, it would probably gain more new fanbase across the board of video game systems, but it would lose a lot of Nintendo fans who only, persay, have a Nintendo system. And even if more they gained more fans with, for example, Playstation, if the said person only has playstation, and not a nintendo system, then they probably wouldn't purchase the older games.

It just doesn't seem realistic enough to me just yet. Sad to say it, but Zelda isn't as big as every fan thinks yet.

It's not that I'm being contradictory- I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate here. For nostalgia reasons, it'd be a little sad if some other company took over the Zelda series, but as they say in show business, "the show must go on." Either that, or they stop making the games. Which ever you prefer, but that's not the point of this thread.

How would it lose Nintendo fans, though (aside from people being too lazy/cannot afford a new console)? If Nintendo wasn't around and some other company took over the games, I would think the Nintendo fans would for the most part migrate over to the new company. If it were on a new console, that would be all the more money for the new company to make.

It sort of depends on what zelda team sans nintendo is made up of. Is Miyamoto and Aounma still there? If the entire team were to be renovated, then that would definately be a turn for the worse, because having different developers taking the places of the lead designers could make a different zelda. It could be a good game, but would it be zelda?

But still, I don't see the difference if it was just the team leaving nintendo. It could be on the 360 and have better graphics, but I think that is the least concern when it comes to making games. The wii proves that (at least first party games).

I think it could turn out two different ways, they would have better graphics, VA, and a better storyline or lots of gore and violence.

I'd be disappointed if it was the second one.

Originally Posted by HashSlingingSlasher

I think it could turn out two different ways, they would have better graphics, VA, and a better storyline or lots of gore and violence.

I'd be disappointed if it was the second one.

That's pretty much what I think as well. It could very well go either way, but I think a lot of fans would object to a ton of gore and violence.

wereman, you bring up a good point. However, even if it's not the entire Zelda team being there, I don't think that would necessarily be a breaker as far as a Zelda game is concerned. What would is if there was bad management. As Zelda has inevitably shaped gaming as a whole, it might not necessarily be bad (assuming the new company had good management).

Originally Posted by Veyrael

It's not that I'm being contradictory- I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate here. For nostalgia reasons, it'd be a little sad if some other company took over the Zelda series, but as they say in show business, "the show must go on." Either that, or they stop making the games. Which ever you prefer, but that's not the point of this thread.

How would it lose Nintendo fans, though (aside from people being too lazy/cannot afford a new console)? If Nintendo wasn't around and some other company took over the games, I would think the Nintendo fans would for the most part migrate over to the new company. If it were on a new console, that would be all the more money for the new company to make.

I love all your Batman sigs. I'm kind of a Batman freak.

But I grew up a poor nintendo/zelda fan. I couldn't afford a console that wasn't nintendo (cuz thats what our family would get) until I got a job because my family is in the middle class. I grew up knowing quite a few fans (more than half my high school) that wouldn't switch from nintendo back when Rare ran off and became its own for a while. And its not like all nintendo fans are exteme zelda fans. Most younger fans are all over mario and would just accept a zelda loss as not being as big of a deal. I've also seen this with the whole split in Resident Evil. That being the case I just think most nintendo fans wouldn't get another console just for Zelda, unless of course they were an extreme zelda fan that could afford it.

Luckily I can afford it nowadays its nice almost being a pharmacist. Personally I wouldn't mind a change of venue, like being on multiple consoles like with Final Fantasy or Resident Evil, but thats just me. When it comes to the bigger picture...it just seems like it wouldn't work for the best.

Originally Posted by n88r

I love all your Batman sigs. I'm kind of a Batman freak.

But I grew up a poor nintendo/zelda fan. I couldn't afford a console that wasn't nintendo (cuz thats what our family would get) until I got a job because my family is in the middle class. I grew up knowing quite a few fans (more than half my high school) that wouldn't switch from nintendo back when Rare ran off and became its own for a while. And its not like all nintendo fans are exteme zelda fans. Most younger fans are all over mario and would just accept a zelda loss as not being as big of a deal. I've also seen this with the whole split in Resident Evil. That being the case I just think most nintendo fans wouldn't get another console just for Zelda, unless of course they were an extreme zelda fan that could afford it.

Luckily I can afford it nowadays its nice almost being a pharmacist. Personally I wouldn't mind a change of venue, like being on multiple consoles like with Final Fantasy or Resident Evil, but thats just me. When it comes to the bigger picture...it just seems like it wouldn't work for the best.

Why thank you, sir. I happen to have gone quite batty myself (there's a reason I'm called Batvey now ). As much as I would love to discuss Gotham and the screwballs who inhabit it, that is something better suited somewhere else besides this thread. You're free to VM me about him all you want, though! :>

You bring up a good point, n88r. As I come from a middle class background myself, my family certainly could not afford every console under the sun. That's definitely an issue in the US (and probably other countries as well, though I really can't speak for them). On the other hand, it would give the new company all the more incentive to not make a sucky Zelda game. Because we know from experience the quality of Nintendo's games, we invest that expectation onto them as a company.

With someone new, we would be quite skeptical. Unless that new company does as good of a job as Nintendo did, if not better, then they can face not only fan backlash, but some degree of financial backlash (if only by older fans like you and I not purchasing the game). It's the youngsters they have to win over, as they're the ones who pester the parents to buy the game for them.

Originally Posted by Veyrael

Why thank you, sir. I happen to have gone quite batty myself (there's a reason I'm called Batvey now ). As much as I would love to discuss Gotham and the screwballs who inhabit it, that is something better suited somewhere else besides this thread. You're free to VM me about him all you want, though! :>

You bring up a good point, n88r. As I come from a middle class background myself, my family certainly could not afford every console under the sun. That's definitely an issue in the US (and probably other countries as well, though I really can't speak for them). On the other hand, it would give the new company all the more incentive to not make a sucky Zelda game. Because we know from experience the quality of Nintendo's games, we invest that expectation onto them as a company.

With someone new, we would be quite skeptical. Unless that new company does as good of a job as Nintendo did, if not better, then they can face not only fan backlash, but some degree of financial backlash (if only by older fans like you and I not purchasing the game). It's the youngsters they have to win over, as they're the ones who pester the parents to buy the game for them.

That is also a good point about skepicism...I think Zelda fans are the biggest skeptics I've ever come across, so for the said company, the first game would more than likely be a hit or miss type game that would either be widely accepted in the Zelda Universe, or widely taboo (CD-i/Cartoon).

Another reason the youngsters are so important to win over is the fact that they are the future of our insane fandom. We need to win 'em over young so that this great fandom may continue in harmony and not die off like Star Fox.

I think having it on a different brand would give it a fresher look and different gameplay.
As the games have been getting a little repeditive lately.
I think as long as it had Link, I would play it.

Guys, please stay on topic. If you want to discuss your hatred of Tingle, please do so in your own thread, not here (as this certainly isn't the place for it). Thank you. :>

Originally Posted by CindyValentine

I think having it on a different brand would give it a fresher look and different gameplay.
As the games have been getting a little repeditive lately.
I think as long as it had Link, I would play it.

It sort of depends on how we will see zelda if gameplay is different. Like, if link started playing like Halo, then it wouldn't be as great, or difffeeeeeerrrrent. Right now they say gameplay will be different, but its the zelda team, and I trust them to do the right changes.

And did you see the Cdi games ? It had link in it, I think....

Veyrael- I don't know if what you just said was serious, but that wasn't part of Cindy's post, just like your banner at the bottom of your post.

I would have a problem with this. It's like how would Mario be if he got sent to some company like Bungie or another company? What I wouldn't mind seeing is Zelda being T rated.

Mandrag, it would not have hurt for you to have just simply explained the rating for Twilight Princess, along with linking to the picture. If you're going to include a picture, you're still going to need to explain yourself in more detail if you want your post to stick around.

While I'm on the subject, Reconal, you are aware that Twilight Princess is the only Zelda game with a T, rating, right? You can even find that information on Wikipedia (or even Zelda Wiki, for that matter).

^ I think he was trying to say that he would like to see a T-rated Zelda come out. Like it would become T-rated if only Nintendo weren't holding it back. Hence my showing that it's happened before.
I suppose if I were clearer to begin with I'd have spared your own confusion, but you should read more carefully.

Either that or I'm the one misinterpreting you. In which case I apologize.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

^ I think he was trying to say that he would like to see a T-rated Zelda come out. Like it would become T-rated if only Nintendo weren't holding it back. Hence my showing that it's happened before.
I suppose if I were clearer to begin with I'd have spared your own confusion, but you should read more carefully.

Either that or I'm the one misinterpreting you. In which case I apologize.

Yeah, you are misinterpreting me a tad. I'm just letting him know that, since he seems like he wasn't aware that a T-rated Zelda came out, that there was one in existence. There's nothing to apologize about there, it was a simple miscommunication.

I wouldn't like it at all. I suppose the graphics would be better, and as long as it was still the Zelda team then the gameplay wouldn't change much. But Zelda is just part of Nintendo, and I think it should stay that way, unless Miyamoto starts working for somebody else. Also, did you see what happened to Banjo-Kazooie when it came out on the 360? Horrible. Zelda and Nintendo just go together and honestly the graphics isn't much of an issue to me. I love the graphics in MM even though they aren't anywhere near spectacular.

^ To be fair, that's not Microsoft's fault. Rare hasn't made anything good since the N64.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

^ To be fair, that's not Microsoft's fault. Rare hasn't made anything good since the N64.

Very true! But what if the same could be said of the Zelda team if they moved to different management? It's just a scary thought to me. It should stay with Nintendo for sure.