2008 - the worst Zelda year in the 00's decade?

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

How would it be any different? I hear all this talk about a "true Wii Zelda" and its supposed greatness yet I fail to understand how it would be any different from Twilight Princess.

Koulatio's explanation works, but if you don't think it would be any different, I'll start with this: the Wii is a more powerful console than the Gamecube. Therefore, things such as graphics would most likely improve (unless if a game gets screwed over and becomes an N64-like game). Games made only for the Wii are mostly better than ported games from the Gamecube, and I doubt that the Zelda dev team will go for Gamecube-quality graphics on the next game.

Originally Posted by Jimes

Personally, if a Zelda title came out next year or 2010, then it would be a good game. 4 year development on a home console title is pretty good going. If it came out 2 years after the last title, then i think it would feel rushed.

Hasn't it been three years? :\

I think we're in for a great game... I mean there hasn't been any Zelda spin-offs in the making lately or anything. It seems like they're putting all their time and effort to the next major console Zelda... I CAN'T WAIT.

Originally Posted by Hoshika-Pichu

Koulatio's explanation works, but if you don't think it would be any different, I'll start with this: the Wii is a more powerful console than the Gamecube. Therefore, things such as graphics would most likely improve (unless if a game gets screwed over and becomes an N64-like game). Games made only for the Wii are mostly better than ported games from the Gamecube, and I doubt that the Zelda dev team will go for Gamecube-quality graphics on the next game.

Wii-caliber graphics instead of Gamecube-caliber graphics. What a huge improvement. Unless graphics happen to be state-of-the-art or unique in some way, there's no reason to get excited about them, especially when the graphics aren't exactly being upgraded all that much.

[QUOTE=Fifth Horsemen;2525572]this isnt the first time this has happened, we had to wait 5 years for the next zelda game after links awakening. but wat we got was oot

id say that was definatley worth the wait[/QU

Thats right, and judging by how miyamotos saying its gonna revolutionize zelda and help expand the market, it should be epic.

One thing has been buggin me though, why is everyone saying this zelda game has only been in development for a year or for not very long however long it is, because does anyone remember when the wii was first unveiled, I think it was e3 2006 when miyamoto, said that a new zelda (NOT TP), Mario, and super smash bros were in development for the console. I'm sure that this happened.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Wii-caliber graphics instead of Gamecube-caliber graphics. What a huge improvement. Unless graphics happen to be state-of-the-art or unique in some way, there's no reason to get excited about them, especially when the graphics aren't exactly being upgraded all that much.

Originally Posted by Hoshika-Pichu

... things such as graphics...

It's just an example. :|

[QUOTE=stalfos child;2525776]

Originally Posted by Fifth Horsemen

this isnt the first time this has happened, we had to wait 5 years for the next zelda game after links awakening. but wat we got was oot

id say that was definatley worth the wait[/QU

Thats right, and judging by how miyamotos saying its gonna revolutionize zelda and help expand the market, it should be epic.

One thing has been buggin me though, why is everyone saying this zelda game has only been in development for a year or for not very long however long it is, because does anyone remember when the wii was first unveiled, I think it was e3 2006 when miyamoto, said that a new zelda (NOT TP), Mario, and super smash bros were in development for the console. I'm sure that this happened.

Yeah, that and remember Nintendo has 2 separate Zelda teams... the console one and the handheld one. People saying the next console Zelda has been in development for a little more than a year think that because they suppose Nintendo started working on it just after PH. But as you said, they started working on it even before TP was released. I read somewhere in an interview that the Zelda teams are nearly always working.

Originally posted by DrZaius
Wii-caliber graphics instead of Gamecube-caliber graphics. What a huge improvement. Unless graphics happen to be state-of-the-art or unique in some way, there's no reason to get excited about them, especially when the graphics aren't exactly being upgraded all that much.

Size is what would probably come into play, along with stuff like framerate, draw-distance, activity etc. With a true Wii game, that could all see a serious upgrade. Certain games like Excite Truck and Corruption were noted as being incapable of running on GC with consistent visual quality because the Wii allowed for their larger game designs to run just fine.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Wii-caliber graphics instead of Gamecube-caliber graphics. What a huge improvement. Unless graphics happen to be state-of-the-art or unique in some way, there's no reason to get excited about them, especially when the graphics aren't exactly being upgraded all that much.

Maybe we could get CD-quality soundtrack instead of midi.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

How would it be any different? I hear all this talk about a "true Wii Zelda" and its supposed greatness yet I fail to understand how it would be any different from Twilight Princess.

I guess the first difference there would be, and this would be the obvious one... it would be a different game. Much like OoT to MM to WW to TP etc.

As for its "supposed difference".... it's a Zelda game. Greatness all a round.

It would be different from TP because of story, slight graphics, things to do, side quests, main quests, items, heart piece locations, bosses, temples, different length than TP either shorter/longer, characters, different way to play music (most likely), probably no wolf transformation, maybe no midna, so a different side kick. I guess what i'm trying to say is, it would be different from twilight because it would all in all be a different game.

There you go Sir. Your anwser

Just wait until the next E³. Then we'll talk.

good games usssually take a lot of time.

Nintendo can't create a game for every year.
Just look at Twilight Princess for example. It's not what everyone was expecting, but that was probably because they were rushed.

Nintendo can't create a game for every year.
Just look at Twilight Princess for example. It's not what everyone was expecting, but that was probably because they were rushed.

I don't think we will ever see another game that everyone is expecting. I think alot of people keep saying things like "this is the next OoT" "this is the REAL sequil to OoT" and stuff like that, wich is not really a good thing to always think. I say, we charish what has happened in the past, and be plesently surpised with whatever they choose to do for the next one. Long live zelda!

^Of course, you're absolutely right! People assume that since Nintendo already created a great Zelda game, they will pop out another great game. But unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way.

Originally Posted by Naokohiro

Just wait until the next Nintendo conference. Then we'll talk.

Fixed. E3 is dead, Nintendo likes to announce their best games at their own events, like back in October.

Of course, you're absolutely right! People assume that since Nintendo already created a great Zelda game, they will pop out another great game. But unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way.

That's what i'm trying to get at. The only game i was not really happy about was MM becasue it was right after OoT. But, since, i have changed my mind about it. I accept what it is. A very good game, but they always seem worse if you always expect another game that could be widely thought of as the best game ever, just because they did it before. I think every Zelda game is great, but, if people keep over hyping them, i don't think the majority of people will be as satisfied as they could have been. That's my 2 cents on the subject.

No one will be 100% soul loved towards any of the Zelda games. While they are great, there won't ever be a game that will fit anyone's likings entirely.

I think the games just need to be taken for what they are.
They're good games that are meant to be played stand-alone without thinking of the other Zelda games.
In fact, didn't Shigeru Miyamoto himself say that he designs them keeping in mind that anyone can play them (and keep up with the story) regardless of whether they've played any other Zelda games?

Originally Posted by Hoshika-Pichu

It's just an example. :|

It's not a good enough one.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Size is what would probably come into play, along with stuff like framerate, draw-distance, activity etc. With a true Wii game, that could all see a serious upgrade. Certain games like Excite Truck and Corruption were noted as being incapable of running on GC with consistent visual quality because the Wii allowed for their larger game designs to run just fine.

Neither of those games were anywhere near as good as their previous, technically inferior installments, and in the case of Metroid Prime actually happened to be smaller then its previous installment.

Originally Posted by Linkey

Maybe we could get CD-quality soundtrack instead of midi.

That has nothing to do with technical limitations and everything to do with terrible production decisions.

Originally Posted by Koulatio

I guess the first difference there would be, and this would be the obvious one... it would be a different game. Much like OoT to MM to WW to TP etc.

As for its "supposed difference".... it's a Zelda game. Greatness all a round.

It would be different from TP because of story, slight graphics, things to do, side quests, main quests, items, heart piece locations, bosses, temples, different length than TP either shorter/longer, characters, different way to play music (most likely), probably no wolf transformation, maybe no midna, so a different side kick. I guess what i'm trying to say is, it would be different from twilight because it would all in all be a different game.

There you go Sir. Your anwser

So why would a Zelda game built ground-up for the Wii be needed to do any of that? That's more like the differences between two Zelda games then one ported to the Wii and one built for it.

Originally posted by DrZaius
Neither of those games were anywhere near as good as their previous, technically inferior installments, and in the case of Metroid Prime actually happened to be smaller then its previous installment.

Quality has nothing to do with what we're talking about (even though Corruption was better than Prime 1/2 in many cases), and it definitely wasn't smaller. Retro said on numerous occasions that it's level design was larger and thus couldn't be done on GC with the graphics and framerate they had for Wii. I trust them a lot more than you.