Zelda's Eiji Aonuma on annualization, and why the series needs 'a bit more time'
We spoke to Zelda series director Eiji Aonuma about his take on annualization.
Wind Waker HD helped Nintendo work on their Wii U Zelda game
This is the final part of our interview with Eiji Aonuma. Also check out part one and two, if you missed them.
-
Shacknews
replyAndrew Yoon posted a new article, Zelda's Eiji Aonuma on annualization, and why the series needs 'a bit more time'.
We spoke to Zelda series director Eiji Aonuma about his take on annualization.-
With how long they are taking how about we add voices to the characters? I'd honestly love to hear spoken dialogue but I might be a bit biased after playing Bioware games for so long......
-
I don't want Link to have a voice
-
Agreed. The series would lose a lot if we started getting voice actors. And it would definitely lose a lot of that magic if the voice acting was bad.
-
Yep. Terrible idea.
-
I guess yea but I've been playing Twilight Princess again and I've found myself not as enthralled with it as I once was and just hearing grunting, laughing and no talking really gets on my nerves lol.
And I know Aonuma wants to do something different the series to freshen it up and I'd think adding voices would work well. Have Link be the silent protagonist.... it worked with Freeman... Or add a classic option to silence the voices and make it like the older titles in the series if you wished to do so.
Remember all the flak Nintendo caught for jumping from the more mature looking Twilight Princess to the more cartoonish Wind Waker art style? And remember how people shut up after playing it because it was a great game? Although change hasn't always been good like say Zelda 2. And if it misfires on them then they could just not do it for future games but they need to take a risk and do something because the only things that have really changed with the series is they way you play it. Zelda is getting stale and Aonuma knows it. Imagine if they had actually stuck with a annual release schedule?
I think with a lot of games having voices overs I'm spoiled with it now lol.-
Ooops I meant OoT/MM instead of TP as TP came out after WW.....
-
-
-
Oh on voice acting alone it would go along way but you are correct. What matters is getting Actors who can properly portray these characters. Oh and some good writing and directing help as well lol :P
-
-
-
-
You deserve it for remind us that this existed!
http://youtu.be/FPxY8lpYAUM-
Ah the memories
-
-
they just straight ripped off steve martin!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn69HCjLvVY
-
-
why is Link such a fucking dick?!?!
-
-
-
nice try American Cartoon Link. I have fond memories of your ridiculous show lol
-
-
I wonder what the voice of the guy who makes his grunts and such sounds like.
-
-
oh my christ, what is the matter with you? link is a silent protagonist. you know what other huge nintendo character was a legendary silent protagonist, and when she opened her mouth it literally destroyed the character in the eyes of many? Samus.
i dont care about zelda, but i respect the franchise and dont want to see them ruin the only other semi-serious character they have. -
God forbid you READ IN A VIDEO GAME.
-
um its called a video game not a book game okay
-
yeah and shit, last thing id do is read a book about video games
-
-
I actually keep the subtitles on as well.....
-
-
the extra time required would be fine if they could get the timing to actually line up well with their hardware releases so you got 2 Zeldas per hardware cycle with one ready near launch
-
this is the thing that makes me scratch my head. it would be such a huge, guaranteed blockbuster smash hit for a new N console to launch right alongside a new Zelda, yet N seems sort of apathetic about it. they should have synced that development cycle up years ago, i dare say a new mainline Zelda launching at or very near the Wii U launch would have made the Wii U a much, much larger success.
-
The Wii launched with Twilight Princess. Like any AAA launch title the major hurdle is the lengthy development time and foresight needed, which requires them to plan it out years in advance when they likely don't have the upcoming console specs or concept finalized yet.
I believe TP was originally a Gamecube came that was ported over mid development to be used as a Wii launch title.-
the only reason TP launched on the Wii is because it was so delayed for the GC (which had already "lost" that generation in marketshare) and the power upgrade to the Wii was so minor that they just decided to make it a cross gen game. It was not designed for the Wii hardware or controller. If it had been on track for the GC it just wouldn't have been a Wii game and you'd have seen the first Wii Zelda many many years later.
No one denies the difficulty of getting a big release ready for new hardware, but a first party team should have a leg up and the other platform owners find ways to get tentpole franchises out for hardcore fans within a reasonable timeframe of launch. It doesn't have to be day 1 but it can't be years later, and if your plan is to release the hardware a year ahead of the competition you better have some software available in that window to convince people to jump onboard.-
-
if your goal is to just make a good game, sure, if your goal is to have a profitable platform with meaningful marketshare compared to the competition then you have other priorities that need to be weighed
-
Nintendo flubbed the Wii U launch but games going to carry them through like they always have. The DS and 3DS also had weak launches, and both were carried by games in the following 1-2 years after release.
The Wii launch was a freak event by any measure.
Either way, nobody's games sustain value the way that Nintendo's do. Classic SNES games cost hundreds of dollars, Gamecube and Wii games still sell at or above retail, and I have no doubt that the upcoming Wii U games are also going to be great.-
that Nintendo's brand built decades prior influences the current game resale values doesn't seem all that interesting. It's been a long time since a Zelda game popped in the way they did in the N64 and earlier eras. If their goal is to limp along with a Nintendo box for Nintendo games and little else then yes they can continue to employ this strategy. The history of the company suggests they'd rather be more like the Nintendo of the NES/SNES era but their current strategy doesn't seem likely to take them there.
-
-
No one was arguing that the games don't end up decent
-
-
-
-
-
-
Regarding the Wii U's slow crawl toward relevance, Nintendo admitted that they underestimated the time and resources needed to create HD games.
-
which is absurd considering HD games have been in development for like 10 years now. Nintendo wasn't approaching a new problem space with a lack of industry information about risks and challenges.
-
-
Nintendo lives in a bubble. I don't agree with it, but that's the reality.
-
-
-
-
Oh I agree, TP was a special case I was merely pointing out that it's not a matter of simply choosing which title out of your extensive list of IP's to launch with.
Regardless, it's not like Nintendo is the special case here. Console launches are very rarely shipped alongside a popular AAA exclusive title to sell the system. We all want Halo 5 and Uncharted 4 on launch date but it rarely ever happens. The difference is the other platforms have the 3rd party support to fall back on which Nintendo always fails at reeling in.
-
-
-
-
I actually love Zelda's 3-to-5-year release cycle. As much as I love Zelda, Batman: Arkham, the Souls franchise, and other IPs, I'd get burned out on them if one came out every year. I think I'd also fail to appreciate new entries: "Oh, I'll just skip this one and get next year's."
We live in a world of instant gratification. There are some things I want YESTERDAY IF NOT SOONER. Games aren't one of them. I'll always have plenty of games to play. Let Nintendo and other great developers do justice to their brands and nurture each entry until it's good and ready.-
Agreed. I can't think of one instance in which annualization has been broadly seen as a good thing for gamers. It generally boils down to a way to get more money from gamers while simultaneously giving them less. (More quantity obviously, but usually at a net decrease in quality and enjoyment.) The very word was made up by executives looking for ways to exploit a market, not by gamers hoping for an Assassin's Creed every year. The best excuse for it would be the sports games, but even there I think a lot of people would be happier with an annual teams/players update pack and a big jump in quality and interesting features every 3-5 years.
-
How about you just spend an extra week removing all the extraneous crap? I'd gladly wait a month if they removed all the "You got a rupee! It's worth 1 rupee! Don't spend it all in one place! lol" crap that shows up every time you reload a game in the last few.
-
