Author Topic: <b>Zelda Delayed to 2006</b> (Read 48719 times)

stevey · « **Reply #26 on:** August 16, 2005, 04:14:23 AM »

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Geos · « **Reply #27 on:** August 16, 2005, 04:17:24 AM »

Ouch this is tragic. If it means more time to polish the game then im all for it.

However im not sure about other people but TP is going to be the deciding factor is wether i get the REV or not. If TP isnt amazing or doesnt come out on the GC, i will not buy a REV. I need something to show me that nintendo still has the magic, worth investing in another console.

wandering · « **Reply #28 on:** August 16, 2005, 04:18:12 AM »

"Yeah, like Super Smash Bros."
SSB wasn't system-seller material. It was (virtually) multiplayer-only, hard to demonstrate, hard to pick up on play, easy on the eyes but not amazing graphically, and not 'epic'. It was a great game, but it definetly wasn't Mario 64. Or Halo. Or Zelda.

edit: "I need something to show me that nintendo still has the magic."
Oh, they still have it. Just believe.

stevey · « **Reply #29 on:** August 16, 2005, 04:21:02 AM »

"then I wish they would take the time to port TP and make it that killer app. "

aren't rev game being made with cube dev kit so it be easy for them to port it.

"Who's buying a Revolution? What is the Revolution? Revolution doesn't even exist yet, nobody plans to buy one yet. We were promised a second Zelda on GC, and that's what we're going to get. Lots of people have it pre-ordered. GC has only been out 3 years here, I want more GC games, screw Revolution."

Well I'm! I'm butting a rev just to play tp!

Mario · « **Reply #30 on:** August 16, 2005, 04:26:42 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
SSB wasn't system-seller material. It was (virtually) multiplayer-only, hard to demonstrate, hard to pick up on play, easy on the eyes but not amazing graphically, and not 'epic'. It was a great game, but it definetly wasn't Mario 64. Or Halo. Or Zelda.

SSBM has outsold most Zelda games, it hasn't outsold OoT yet but it will soon. I don't see how Zelda is a game everyone wants to play when SSB isn't.

Quote
edit: "I need something to show me that nintendo still has the magic."
Oh, they still have it. Just believe.

Indeed. When you play Twilight Princess, you will say "wow".

joshnickerson · « **Reply #31 on:** August 16, 2005, 04:27:40 AM »

I think Darth Vader said it best.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

wandering · « **Reply #32 on:** August 16, 2005, 04:43:33 AM »

Quote
SSBM has outsold most Zelda games, it hasn't outsold OoT yet but it will soon. I don't see how Zelda is a game everyone wants to play when SSB isn't.

....you may have a point there. Zelda might not be a good game to launch with...nintendo's never launched with a Zelda game before. I think they've even said in the past that Zelda might be too complex for a launch game. (And there are other good reasons not to launch with it: it might be hard to port it in such a short time, it might steal thunder from the new mario game, etc).

Let's think about this for a second, though. If Nintendo wants to release it as a Cube game...when will they do it? Doesn't "after March 31" pretty much mean holidays 2005, at the earliest? And if that's the case, would Nintendo really want to market and launch a cube game at the same time as the Revolution launch?

Now that I think about it, it seems likely that Nintendo will determine that they can't release Zelda as a final gamecube game or a rev launch game. Instead, I think they'll decide to launch TP in 2007, on the rev, at the holidays, or [edit: whoops. Wrong year.]
....And you know what? That wouldn't be such a bad thing. If Nintendo did that, TP would almost certainly become the most hyped game ever, and anticipation for it could really push REVS, even well before TP's slated release.

Nile Boogie · « **Reply #33 on:** August 16, 2005, 04:54:53 AM »

Un-satin, most un-satin indeed. The only thing I can think of is that TP will change the definition of "backwards compatibility". There's no way they need that much more time to put "polish" on the game (7-months). Walk with me for a moment and see if I don't take you somewhere interesting: What if Twilight Princess is a hybrid game that works fine in either system but for those of us that use it on the Revolution will not only get a significant graphical increase but also get on-line options and downloadable content. April 2006 for a GameCube game that been in development since "The end of 2003" is suspect at best in my book. Besides that, if this game surpasses Ocarina of Time as the greatest interactive experience of all time the I'll just have to suck it up. Sign me up on the Zelda as a Revolution Launch/Gamecube death title.

Or maybe we're all looking at this wrong. The delay could just be to put a mature Tingle in the game and God knows that going to take at least 6 extra months.

stevey · « **Reply #34 on:** August 16, 2005, 04:57:42 AM »

But the perorders man the perorders, the people perorder zelda on the cube not rev and I'm not going to wait till 07 to get it by 07 the rev zelda will be nearly done. and some mexico gaming mag said that tp was almost done in jan. and they were just polishing so they had a year to polish they alreadly have the time to polish.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #35 on:** August 16, 2005, 05:09:20 AM »

This seriously upsets me, but makes me happy at the same time. Do you not realize we will finally get a Zelda game as epic, and wonderous as OoT! That is a huge feat that many thought was impossible at this time when game development times are shortening.

Now, I really wish Nintendo would just delay the game and let everyone know that it is being retooled for the Revolution. (I don't think that is what is going on by the way) I just wish Nintendo would do that. Why? Several reasons:

1)Zelda Revolution would be a huge killer app that would bring new buyers to the Revolution. Specially this particular Zelda that is everything the fans wanted. (Older Link, more Realistic World, Spectacular fighting, Bigger game than OoT.)

2)Nintendo announcing this would allow them to create new hype for the Revolution without, showing the controller or anything else.

3)It could mean Nintendo can make a March 2006 release. Think about it. Artists work overtime to replace models with higher resolution models and the game designers continue to new levels by March it can be ready easy. Then Online Smash Brothers, and Mario Revolution could be the Christmas release. HOWEVER, this news most likely points out that Revolution will not be launching the March or even beginning Summer. This news points out Revolution will be launching holiday season of next year which isn't good at all.

4)I love my Gamecube but I must admit I feel it is dead. I don't think Nintendo needs to make one last big game for the Gamecube. I think they need to be prepping all these new games into Revolution games. Mario Baseball is the only Mario sports game that should be released this year, and Mario Strikers should be prepped for Revolution Launch. Come on Nintendo try to launch the Revolution with both guns firing.

Mario · « **Reply #36 on:** August 16, 2005, 05:13:21 AM »

I wouldn't buy a Revolution if I thought it might have a three year lifespan.

Pale · « **Reply #37 on:** August 16, 2005, 05:19:55 AM »

First of all.....

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
"Yeah, like Super Smash Bros."
SSB wasn't system-seller material. It was (virtually) multiplayer-only. It was a great game, but it definetly wasn't Halo.

That comment (chopped to make apparent) makes no sense.... Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit here and try and bash Halo, but anyone who says Halo was successful for any reasons other than its 'hip' marketing and multiplayer is wrong. Just because you apparently never learned how to play smash or something doesn't mean that an online version isn't going to make Revs fly off the damn shelves.

As for the news at hand... I'm thinking maybe Nintendo is doing this because they don't want to have it go head-to-head with the 360. I mean seriously, everyone here has complained about the dead area of releases in Jan-May months... maybe Nintendo is finally listening to you.

Ideally I bet they wanted to move the game up to get it out of the shadow of the 360, but that most likely was not possible.

I'm not going to lie and say I'm not bummed, but it's not like I won't find games to play in the meantime.

stevey · « **Reply #38 on:** August 16, 2005, 05:28:00 AM »

"I really wish Nintendo would just delay the game and let everyone know that it is being retooled for the Revolution.''

NO NO NO! Nintendo said that there are still going to cube game when the rev comes that why there logo is revOlution

TMW · « **Reply #39 on:** August 16, 2005, 05:37:18 AM »

Oh my...what horrible news to wake up too.

I might as well go back to bed.
=================

I hope to gawd they don't make it a Rev game. Just gimme my damn Zelda!

The town! I want to run around the town!

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #40 on:** August 16, 2005, 05:54:04 AM »

Come on, I'm the biggest Zelda fan here and I'm just fine with the delay...The Zelda Team is doing their best to make this game the best ever, and damned if they need to be stopped by time contraints!

KirbySStar · « **Reply #41 on:** August 16, 2005, 06:20:12 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: stevey
"I really wish Nintendo would just delay the game and let everyone know that it is being retooled for the Revolution.''

NO NO NO! Nintendo said that there are still going to cube game when the rev comes that why there logo is revOlution

I faintly remember them saying the same thing about Mario 128 being for cube and it not coming to revolution. Nintendo sure is great about keeping promises.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #42 on:** August 16, 2005, 06:31:20 AM »

Bill again I love your spirit.

And once again. Your icon choice is good, but still not the Bill I pretend to know...it seems overtly sexual...or perhaps its my male oriented mind making it so.

wandering · « **Reply #43 on:** August 16, 2005, 06:32:41 AM »

Quote
That comment (chopped to make apparent) makes no sense.... Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit here and try and bash Halo, but anyone who says Halo was successful for any reasons other than its 'hip' marketing and multiplayer is wrong. Just because you apparently never learned how to play smash or something doesn't mean that an online version isn't going to make Revs fly off the damn shelves.

Firstly, I own, love and play smash bros., and am not a very big fan of Halo.

Secondly, Chopping up my post doesn't really make anything apparent.

Thirdly, I will concede that I may have been thinking that the single player in Halo was more important than it actually was. But, irregardless, the argument that a well crafted campaign may help sales, even in a game that is bought primarily for mulitplayer, is valid. For one thing, in-store kiosks generally only let you play single player. For another, just in general I'm fairly sure mulitplayer-only games tend to not sell as well as fully fledged games with robust multi-player modes.

Furthermore, if you factor in the other things I pointed out about SSB, and further factor in some of Halo's positive (and by positive I mean sellable) attributes (features such as photo realistic graphics, true 3D gameplay, an interesting sci-fi universe, and of course GUNS), and I think it becomes hard to boil the picture down to 'Halo was more popular because of hip marketing'.

Halo was an 'event' game and SSB wasn't.... was that solely due to marketing? Will online play (and better marketing) really make a 2.5D Nintendo charachter fighter sell consoles that much better this time round?

I'd love it if SMB online went Halo huge.... and maybe it will (I'm horrible at predicting how a game will sell). But,
I'm pretty convinced that Nintendo needs an M64-style large-scale game this time around. It doesn't even have to be single-player centric, but it does have to be very innovative, with simple and intuitive play mechanics. That's what they were missing with the cube launch: As great as Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion were, the games were both complex, short, and not overtly amazing or inviting.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #44 on:** August 16, 2005, 07:01:18 AM »

I just want to say: Y-E-S!

If I were to complain about one thing on the GameCube it would be the quality of the first party software. Nintendo delayed Ocarina of Time for something like 1.5 years, and while it isn't my favourite of the 3D Zeldas, it does feel more "complete" than the other games, and general opinion seems to be that it is the best. Nintendo hasn't been taking that extra time with most GameCube titles, and I think it shows. The GameCube still has great titles, but I'm really looking forward to playing a fully polished Nintendo game.

I'm going to get the game one way or another, and there will be very few new games in 2006 one way or the other, so I might as well have a truly amazing Legend of Zelda next year rather than a good one this year. I'll buy Fire Emblem and Battalion Wars and hopefully Chibi Robo instead.

Nile Boogie · « **Reply #45 on:** August 16, 2005, 07:16:40 AM »

Wow. This has made Christmas in the Nile Boogie household just a little bit colder. Why? Why must it hurt so bad? Is it ok for me to get a X360?

April 2006. That date is so suspect of something more than just "extending the life span of the GameCube". I'm willing to bet somehow this has something to do with the Revolution. It mat not be the whole Super Backwards Compatibility thing I mentioned in a previous post but it has a distinct tie in.

pudu · « **Reply #46 on:** August 16, 2005, 07:17:03 AM »

First of all I very strongly believe there is no chance of this game being moved to revolution. The fact that the game will actually run on Rev. makes the theory seem even more rediculous in my eyes.

My innitial reaction was surprisingly a good one. Lets see...OoT was delayed like mad and...well...in the end no one cared because it was so polished and remarkable because of it. If you guys want to get excited about the quality of the finished game we will all be treated to check out the 7 new screens they released >HERE< Good things come to those who wait

The thing is there is one part of this announcement that upsets me and that is Nintendo's screwed (console-wise) for this comming holiday. They had Zelda as this enourmous game to compete with anything the 360 would have but now they don't have that. Nintendo's popularity seems to be fading more and more. The very small amount of games coming out at the end of the cube's life cycle is really hurting it and come christmas people will be reminded once more of this reality.

Like other's have suggested, I may be getting a DS or the rest of the cube games I've not played come december.

Pale · « **Reply #47 on:** August 16, 2005, 07:17:40 AM »

Well, my point was that saying SSB could never be a huge game because it is primarily multiplayer, and then using Halo as an example of why made no sense to me.

But anyway, anyone who actually thinks Zelda is going to change Nintendo's current stance in the market is wrong anyway. It is not possible to change Nintendo's current stance in the market. The only reason I am bummed at all about this announcment is that i _personally_ have to wait longer to play Zelda. Who cares about getting out in time for the holiday rush.

trip1eX · « **Reply #48 on:** August 16, 2005, 07:24:43 AM »

This is the strength of Nintendo - releasing polished games.

If this was EA it would be out there Nov. 1st.

Nintendo should make it a Revolution launch game, but that's another step toward the dark side.

And would it be too late in development to go back and make use of the Revolution's extra power and it's controller?

Bloodworth · « **Reply #49 on:** August 16, 2005, 07:31:28 AM »

Umm... I don't know the exact figures, but Super Smash Bros. Melee is definitely in the same vein as Halo. It's the best selling game on the system, and has continued selling well for the life of the system. Although both games did well when they were released, the true secret to their success was multiplayer; people play the games at a friend's party and eventually decide they have to get it. Really the primary difference is that Halo has already had a sequel. Halo is the main reason people have an Xbox, and when Halo 2 finally rolled online, not only did pretty much everyone who had the first Halo buy it on day one, but so did a good number of their friends.

News:

Author Topic: <b>Zelda Delayed to 2006</b> (Read 48719 times)