Topic: Eiji Aonuma Never Completed Zelda 1

[Luigi Dude]

Nintendo produced games that had huge cultural popularity after Zelda and Mario's reign--that's what I'm pointing out.  Pokemon had the TV show, the card game, wide release theatrical movies, toys, etc...  Aonuma isn't making Zelda popular.  Hell, the "greatest game of all time" (lol) wasn't even that popular.  Maybe the people making new (,unpopular,) Zelda games should figure out why the hell old Zelda was so popular and play the fucking game themselves!

Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess both sold over sold 7 million copies compared to the NES original that sold over 6 million.  I'm not sure were you learned how to do math, but when something sells over 1 million copies more then the other, that makes it more popular.

[marty]

Nintendo produced games that had huge cultural popularity after Zelda and Mario's reign--that's what I'm pointing out.  Pokemon had the TV show, the card game, wide release theatrical movies, toys, etc...  Aonuma isn't making Zelda popular.  Hell, the "greatest game of all time" (lol) wasn't even that popular.  Maybe the people making new (,unpopular,) Zelda games should figure out why the hell old Zelda was so popular and play the fucking game themselves!

Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess both sold over sold 7 million copies compared to the NES original that sold over 6 million.  I'm not sure were you learned how to do math, but when something sells over 1 million copies more then the other, that makes it more popular.

Where is the Zelda empire these days, since Zelda is so popular?  Where is the cereal and TV show?  Why is shiggy threatening that skyward sword is going to be the last game if it's not successful?  Doesn't sound like a popular franchise to me.

Considering how much bigger the market is, Zelda should be selling a lot more.  Super Mario Kart sells 7 million copies.  Mario Kart Wii sells 25+ million.  How come Zelda isn't selling proportionally?  How come 25 years of market growth hasn't improved sales of Zelda?  Simple: it's not as popular as it was when the market was smaller.

[marty]

@Luigi Dude

Not that I'm claiming wiki as a reliable source, but the numbers for TP are under that of Zelda 1.  Where are your numbers for sales of Zelda 1 and TP from?

[UncleBob]

Where is the cereal and TV show?

Where's the Mario cereal and TV show?

Again, we've established, Nintendo isn't as loose with their licensing agreements as they once were.  Why is this so hard to understand?

[TJ Spyke]

I don't think Miyamoto ever said SS would be the last game if not successful.

Mario Kart is a casual series, anybody can pick it up and play. Zelda is not a casual series. The series has NOT gone down in popularity. Yes there are more people playing games, but not all like the same games. There are many people who play ONLY sports games, or who only play fitness games, etc. And Nintendo is more careful with licensing, you don't think they could have a Zelda cereal and TV show if they wanted to? They are not saturating the franchise and milking it to death. The series is still popular, even more so now.

To me, your argument is like saying "why are TV shows getting more viewers now than they were 30 years ago even though millions more people watch TV". It's because there are more choices for people to watch and not everyone likes the same shows. Yes more people are playing games, but there are far more games to choose from (there used to be like 400 games released a year in the mid-90s, now there are well over 1,000 each year), and many more types of gamers.

[marty]

Where is the cereal and TV show?

Where's the Mario cereal and TV show?

Again, we've established, Nintendo isn't as loose with their licensing agreements as they once were.  Why is this so hard to understand?

Mario has lost a lot of popularity, too.  Galaxy and Galaxy 2 combined didn't sell as much as SMB3.  Are you suggesting that Nintendo wouldn't license out popular franchises if there was demand?  I see Wii Fit licensed merch often enough.  There just isn't the demand for Mario or Zelda like there once was; it has nothing to do with Nintendo being "loose" because they will be "loose" if there's demand.  Why is this so hard to understand?

[Ceric]

SMB3 Isn't exactly a fair comparison since it was the Best Selling Game of All Time in the Guiness Book of World Records before.

[Luigi Dude]

@Luigi Dude

Not that I'm claiming wiki as a reliable source, but the numbers for TP are under that of Zelda 1.  Where are your numbers for sales of Zelda 1 and TP from?

Neo Gaf members who have insider access to sales info like NPD have said when you combine the sales of the Wii and Gamecube version of Twilight Princess, it's sales over 7 million and it's the second best selling Zelda behind Ocarina of Time.

Wikipedia's TP numbers are outdated since they say the Wii version sold 4.5 million copies as of March 1, 2008.  The Wii version has continued to keep selling since then, which is why most stores still have copies of the game and why Nintendo keeps shipping copies of the game.  Yeah it might not have Mario, Pokemon and Wii _ style legs, but hardly any other series do.

Mario has lost a lot of popularity, too.  Galaxy and Galaxy 2 combined didn't sell as much as SMB3.

That doesn't mean anything since New Super Mario Bros DS and Wii have both sold better then SMB3.  And this is something I don't need Neo Gaf members for since Nintendo provided these numbers.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2011/110128e.pdf#page=6

New Super Mario Bros DS - 26 million
New Super Mario Bros Wii - 21 million

And even this info is about 8 months old and both games have continued to keep selling after that.

[marty]

I don't think Miyamoto ever said SS would be the last game if not successful.

http://www.izelda.net/zelda-news/nintendo-developers-warned-future-zelda/

Mario Kart is a casual series, anybody can pick it up and play. Zelda is not a casual series. The series has NOT gone down in popularity. Yes there are more people playing games, but not all like the same games. There are many people who play ONLY sports games, or who only play fitness games, etc. And Nintendo is more careful with licensing, you don't think they could have a Zelda cereal and TV show if they wanted to? They are not saturating the franchise and milking it to death. The series is still popular, even more so now.

Nintendo cashes in while their franchises are hot.  They are careful, yes, but they'll take the money when it will help their popularity.

There have always been people that ONLY play whatever specific style of game.  Zelda USED TO be second to Mario in terms of sales and popularity.  The Zelda market share is shrinking.

To me, your argument is like saying "why are TV shows getting more viewers now than they were 30 years ago even though millions more people watch TV". It's because there are more choices for people to watch and not everyone likes the same shows. Yes more people are playing games, but there are far more games to choose from (there used to be like 400 games released a year in the mid-90s, now there are well over 1,000 each year), and many more types of gamers.

I don't know what your TV analogy is but I'll just say that the Superbowl is the most watched thing on american TV year after year--does it mean that the Superbowl is gaining popularity or that population growth and cultural saturation ensure that the Superbowl will remain the most watched event every year?  If, one year, the superbowl wasn't the most watched event wouldn't that mean that the superbowl (and probably pro football in general) are declining in popularity?  I say "of course."

So if Zelda sells 7 million copies on the NES and the market expands and 20 years of people are born and Zelda still only sells 7 million copies--that's got to mean that Zelda isn't as popular.  What your saying is that, at best, Zelda will only sell 7 million copies regardless of the population of the planet and the size of the market (even when it was very, very small in 1986) but that it is just as popular as it ever was.  This makes no sense.

[marty]

SMB3 Isn't exactly a fair comparison since it was the Best Selling Game of All Time in the Guiness Book of World Records before.

Well, it must have been a pretty popular game, I'd say.  Mario used to be pretty popular.

[Mop it up]

Considering the original Zelda is literally impossible to beat without a guide, I'd imagine at least 90% of everyone who's played it never completed the game.

This number that you just made up is probably a gross exaggeration. I don't see what's so impossible about the game... it's pretty easy to find where to go with a little exploration. Actually getting there is another matter, but I never had much trouble figuring the game out with a little experimentation. Although the second quest has a few things that are pretty random (it was a while before I figured out the "running through walls" thing introduced then, although it does give you somewhat of a clue by leading you towards the first wall that uses this).

This game was released long before the Internet was widespread, plus many games of the day were designed in a similar manner where you had to figure everything out for yourself. Players back then were more used to this kind of game and so they were more tolerant of such things and determined to push through and finish. I also don't think that Zelda is nearly as bad as games like Castlevania II or even Metroid.

[TJ Spyke]

The quote says Miyamoto said if it wasn't the best Zelda, not if it didn't sell well. A game can be great and not sell well (or be bad and sell well).

Um, Mario STILL is popular. Your earlier post even contradicts yourself. I would also like to point out that for awhile SMB3 was also bundled with the NES and includes those sales numbers.

My TV analogy was because you claimed that Zelda sales should be higher just because there are more gamers. There are more people watching TV now, but the average TV show gets less ratings (and specials like the Super Bowl always get higher ratings, I am talking about normal shows). For example, the top rated TV show of 1980 was Dallas, which got a 34.5 rating (even the 18th ranked show got a 20.7 rating). For 2010-11, it was American Idol with a 24 rating. Considering that the US population increased from 221 million to 308 million, your logic says that ratings should be higher. More gamers does not mean that a series will continue to grow and grow. That does NOT mean a series is declining in popularity.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Aonuma played A Link to the Past, and that's a more important game to have experienced than the original.  It's the game the original might have been if not for technical limitations.  It's the quintessential Zelda.

[UncleBob]

Mario has lost a lot of popularity, too.  Galaxy and Galaxy 2 combined didn't sell as much as SMB3.

Yet NSMB and NSMBWii have outsold SMB3.  So where's mah Mario cereal?

Are you suggesting that Nintendo wouldn't license out popular franchises if there was demand?

Yes.  Thus there's been no Zelda or Metroid movie, in spite of the fact that there have been very prominent Hollywood-type folks who have wanted to go that direction.

I see Wii Fit licensed merch often enough.

Whar's mah Wii Fit Cereal (Part of a balanced board breakfast) and cartoon?

There's licensed Zelda merchandise out there.  Clothing, trading cards, hell, Amazon has the English translations of some of the Zelda manga up... Don't recall that being available back in the NES days.

[Mop it up]

Whar's mah Wii Sports cereal? Bits of toasted oat cereal pieces with marshmallows in the shape of tennis rackets, baseball bats, bowling balls, golf clubs, and boxing mitts. The back of the box has facial features that you can cut out and use to make a Mii.

[UncleBob]

...and what licensed Wii Fit things have there been?  Not saying they don't exist... I just can't think of anything that's been officially licensed by Nintendo...

[TJ Spyke]

Well, I think there has been some Wii Fit shirts and pants, but I don't know if they are exclusive to Nintendo World store or not.

[famicomplicated]

This is a good thread to admit to the public that I have also never completed Zelda 1.
More than that, I've never played it for more than 10 minute sessions!
Zelda 2 - same deal except for less than 2 minutes.


I am rectifying this thanks to the Ambassador games though! I WILL finish Zelda 1 by years end, guaranteed*










*not a guarantee

[TalesOfFan]

This is a good thread to admit to the public that I have also never completed Zelda 1.
More than that, I've never played it for more than 10 minute sessions!
Zelda 2 - same deal except for less than 2 minutes.


I am rectifying this thanks to the Ambassador games though! I WILL finish Zelda 1 by years end, guaranteed*

I've started doing the same thing with the Ambassador games, though I started with Zelda II. After 19 hours and 86 lives I finished Zelda II. I didn't even bother to use the suspend feature; whenever I turned the game off I started from castle. And since Zelda II is a much more linear adventure, I'd recommend starting with it. I rarely used any guides while playing it, as most of what you need to know can be learned from the towns people.

It was a great experience that I'd recommend to any Zelda fans. I'd even go so far to say that Zelda II is now my favorite in the series.

[famicomplicated]

Started with Zelda 1.
I'm using a guide to find the dungeons, but hopefully I'll be able to figure those out without help.
I'm assuming they are structured similarly to the latter games!

Zelda 2 is just too weird for me, combat just feels wrong, like you "have" to get hit to be successful.
But you never know, I might get round to it eventually, I would like to have completed every game in the series.

[Mop it up]

19 hours for Zelda II? Seems like a while. Did you get stuck at any points, or have trouble and retried a few times?

[UltimatePartyBear]

It was a great experience that I'd recommend to any Zelda fans. I'd even go so far to say that Zelda II is now my favorite in the series.

I'm glad you liked it, but I never thought I'd hear anyone say Zelda II is their favorite.  I could say it's my favorite NES Zelda, I suppose. 

Zelda 2 is just too weird for me, combat just feels wrong, like you "have" to get hit to be successful.

You're doing something wrong.  There are some hard to avoid things, but you don't have to get hit by anything.  I don't know what exactly you're doing wrong.  In two minutes, you couldn't have faced anything tougher than the weakest moblins.  I suppose since they're one of two kinds of bipedal enemy in the game with no AI -- they just keep running forward -- and they have long spears, trying to fight them could be confusing.  The combat system should make sense once you start fighting monsters smart enough to back away from you, so you have to close in while using your shield to protect yourself.  Most other monsters you just have to stab before they bump into you.

[ThePerm]

how many people beat it without a guide but watched someone else play it? I only knew what to do in mario 1 because my bro and dad played it.

[KDR_11k]

SMB3 Isn't exactly a fair comparison since it was the Best Selling Game of All Time in the Guiness Book of World Records before.

And you know what, NSMB sold more. So the potential was clearly there and an inferior game like NSMB manages to grab it. Why didn't the Galaxy games beat SMB3 then?

[TalesOfFan]

19 hours for Zelda II? Seems like a while. Did you get stuck at any points, or have trouble and retried a few times?

I never really got stuck, but I did grind and die a lot.