The Legend of Zelda Thread

[TCP]

We have a lot of Zelda topics, about a lot of Zelda games... Both DS games have their own topic, we have a topic for 3D Zelda games and modern Zelda games, even a topic for Zelda continuity.. But we lack a generic, all purpose, everyday Zelda thread. Well that changes now. Use this thread to discuss your favorite Zelda temple, post Link's Awakening music, and talk of the future of Zelda games.

[TCP]

I will start with posting this article:

http://ds.ign.com/articles/122/1222868p1.html

 

If Miyamoto was indeed quoted correctly, and he is going to create a Zelda in the style of A Link to the Past, that might actually make me play my 3DS again. Honestly, I'm surprised there hasn't been one already, especially after the new success of the Mario sidescrollers. Seems like a logical idea for the DS or WiiWare. But please, Nintendo, keep this downloadable, k thnx.

[FMW]

I reckon that the 3DS will see an isometric Zelda game. There have been suggested rumblings that Nintendo wants to do something with multiple height tiers from an overhead perspective (like the Sand Temple in Spirit Tracks or Hyrule Castle in Link to the Past) with the 3D technology. I think that's a pretty logical, if not innovative, way to apply the 3D tech to the old Zelda franchise.

 

The question though is if they'll do it with 2D graphics work, or 3D polygons. Zelda hasn't gone 2D for a new release in a long long time.

[excel_excel]

Keep in downloadable? Why? If its a full blow Zelda sequel then it'll be a retail release! I'd look forward to it!

[TCP]

Because, a 2D, sprite based game does not deserve to be a retail release, unless it's cheaper. Even with 3D models, I still don't think the development cost would be equal to $40 at retail.

[TheMightyEthan]

Art style should not determine price-point, content of the game should. If there's enough game there to justify the price it shouldn't matter whether it's 2D sprites or 3D models.

[TCP]

I disagree. Then a game like Skyrim should cost hundreds of dollars, and a game like Fable 3 should cost less than the 60 dollar price (at new, of course).

It wasn't art style I was referring to, it was cost of game development. A sprite based game doesn't cost as much to develop as say, Kid Icarus or Super Mario 3D Land, so it shouldn't cost as much. That's why games like Braid, Limbo, Bastion, were released at 10 or 15 dollars, instead of the full 60.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

It's a Nintendo game. Purely by the size of the company it's going to cost more to make than an indie game developed by 1-5 people. Not to mention that content takes time (and thus money to develop.) Zelda games have more content than the mentioned games.

[TheMightyEthan]

@TCP: It's meaningless to use new game prices because as we all know they're pegged at certain amounts regardless of value. Though personally I do buy games at different prices based on my perception of their value, and as I understand it most others do to (waiting for the price to drop, buying used, etc). I did oversimplify when I said content should determine price, but at least for me content and gameplay are the biggest factors in determining how much I'll pay for a game.

 

Anyway, while doing a game in 3D will have higher dev costs than doing the same game in 2D sprites, that's not the only determiner of the cost of development, the rest of the content contributes as well. It's not even necessarily the largest cost, though in some games it certainly is. I doubt Zelda games are among those where the 3D graphics/models are the highest cost.

 

Ultimately though the price isn't determined by cost to develop, it's determined by the value consumers perceive it to have. Braid, Limbo, Bastion, etc weren't low price because they were cheap to develop, they were low price because they didn't think they could get away with charging more for it. Granted if you know you're not going to be able to charge much for your game you're going to try harder to keep production costs down so you can still make a profit at that lower price, but I guarantee they would have sold any of those games for $60 if they thought people would buy them at that price.

[FMW]

I think it's interesting the idea the price of a product should be related to cost of creation. Movie ticket prices don't reflect the budget behind a film, nor do book prices reflect how long it took to write it. CowboyPoet, do you feel like these are things that should be changed? Do you feel like cost of creation really ought to be reflected in consumer price on the other end?

 

If not, why do you feel like video games using less money on graphics should be sold at lower price?

 

My bias here is probably pretty clear (I don't see what one cost has to do with the other) but I'm honestly curious about your answer. Don't read this as being overly hostile.

[TCP]

I don't think if a game has a budget of 4 million dollars, it should be more expensive than the price of a game that was developed for 3 million dollars.

But I don't think they can, in good faith, release a game like Kid Icarus, that would have a huge development team, voice actors, 3D graphic artists, years of development, etc etc and then release a sprite based game with SNES graphics, even if it has the same ammount of content, and release it for the same price. That's why, for those types of games, a downloadable 15-20 dollar price tage is much more reasonable.

It's not even so much my opinion, as a precedent that's been set. When we moved from PS2 to PS3 games, the price went up 10 dollars, and they told us that was because, typically, development from 6th to the 7th generation games cost more. Same thing happened with the DS to the 3DS, and the PSP to the Vita. Was the development cost really the 10 dollar difference between PS2 to PS3? Who knows, but I am inclined to believe them that the development cost would be at least, a little bit more.

At the end of the day, if Nintendo feels they can release a game with SNES graphics in 2012/13 for 40 dollars and still make profit off it, then hey, good for them. They're a business and that's absolutely what they'll do, and what they're allowed to do.

But on the other hand, when Capcom released the new Mega Man games, they were downloadable, via the PSN, for the fraction of the price of a retail game.

Edited April 13, 2012 by TheCowboyPoet

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Where's the precadent? Do you have a comparison that works that doesn't involve an independent studio?

[Strangelove]

To be honest, I wouldnt pay 40 bucks for a 3DS sequel to A Link To The Past if it had 16 bit graphics and no voiceacting. Megaman 9 and 10 did that and they were less than 20 bucks. Thats how it should be. And its not so much graphics or longevity, but its the work put into it. Those games are cheaper and easier to make. And its not about 2D. 2D nowadays can be very expensive and time consuming, Blazblue and KoF prove that. If they release something the quality of those fighting games, then yes. they can have 40 dollars easily.

Nostalgia is just cheap. Im over it. I want the best thats possible for my money now.

3D Dot Game Heroes also comes to mind. ive never played it, but it always seemed to me that it should have been a dlc game for 20 or 30 bucks.

 

This is just off the top of my head. Im sure there are other things that play into it that I havent thought of yet. Movies are always the same price for big studio movies whether its a "cheap" drama with no cgi or a monster cgi multimilion dollar film like Transformers, and less for indies. Books are a separate thing. Those are all priced differently depending on the author, length and physical quality such as hardcovers and paperback. Just tons of variables.

 

I think it comes down to the fact that I can imagine ways in which a game could be better and more worth of the pricetag. Lots of "ifs".

Edited April 13, 2012 by Strangelove

[TCP]

Where's the precadent? Do you have a comparison that works that doesn't involve an independent studio?

Read the last sentence.

Also the precedent I mentioned, had nothing to do with independent studios, but with the rising cost of retail games.

 

To be honest, I wouldnt pay 40 bucks for a 3DS sequel to A Link To The Past if it had 16 bit graphics and no voiceacting. Megaman 9 and 10 did that and they were less than 20 bucks. Thats how it should be. And its not so much graphics or longevity, but its the work put into it. Those games are cheaper and easier to make. And its not about 2D. 2D nowadays can be very expensive and time consuming, Blazblue and KoF prove that. If they release something the quality of those fighting games, then yes. they can have 40 dollars easily.

Nostalgia is just cheap. Im over it. I want the best thats possible for my money now.

3D Dot Game Heroes also comes to mind. ive never played it, but it always seemed to me that it should have been a dlc game for 20 or 30 bucks.

Agreed with everything I quoted.

Except, 3D Dot Game Heroes was about 40 dollars or so when it was released. The reason given was, as you and I both mentioned, the game was cheaper and easier to make.

Edited April 13, 2012 by TheCowboyPoet

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

What rising cost of games? Game prices have gotten lower over time when factoring inflation, not higher. Anyways, MegaMan games are from one company. One example isn't a precadent. Not to mention that isn't first party and was released as a downloadable title.The indie thing works because there are countless examples. What about the pricing of a cart vs. downloadable? I think that's more important than content.

 

Also yeah, 3D Dot Game Heroes was $40 when it came out. One of the few games that didn't go with the $60 price scheme.

[TCP]

Do you even read or do you just like arguing with everyone about anything? The price of games jumped in 2005/6 it had nothing to do with inflation.

The Megaman exmaple has nothing to do with 1st party or 3rd party. Yes, one example is not a precedent (it's with an E, by the way, not an A), but that's not what I was saying was the precedent.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Crashing on... Someone has already beaten Nintendo to making a Link to the Past sequel. You can download it here. And it's free, which i think everyone can agree is a good price.

 

Edited link because I'm an idiot.

Edited April 13, 2012 by TheFlyingGerbil

[TheMightyEthan]

I totally agree that there should be more price points in games besides the $15-20 range and then a jump to $60 (I know there are a few games that release between those prices, but they're few and far between; also talking about home consoles here, I know mobile games are cheaper, but the principle is the same).

 

That said, whether a game uses 2D or 3D graphics should not be the determining factor. How a game looks could certainly be a factor in how much it's worth to you, but making it the be all and end all is just silly.

[TCP]

Ethan..... no one is saying the visuals should be factor. We're talking about development costs. So yes, I'm saying in 2012, a game with SNES graphics, should be a downloadable game. But I am not saying it's because of the graphics, I'm saying that because the development costs would be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than Uncharted 3, Skyrim, Skyward Sword, etc.

TFG: that link just geos back to the IGN page.

Edited April 13, 2012 by TheCowboyPoet

[TheMightyEthan]

But why does cost of development have anything at all to do with it? Sure cost of development sets a minimum price below which it's impossible to make a profit, but aside from that why does any factor other than how much you're going to get out of it matter to you at all?

 

Also, there is a HUGE difference between "a 2D, sprite-based game" and "a game with SNES graphics." This game is 2D and sprite-based:

 

 

Does that look like SNES to you?

[TCP]

No, but a sequel/successor that Miyomoto was talking about, sounded like it'd be SNES graphics, like other sequels (think Megaman 9 and 10, Final Fantasy IV The After Years, etc).

 

 

Furthermore, we're pushing this topic way off course. All I was saying, is that I feel a SNES style game should be a downloadable game in 2012, if you disagree THAT'S FINE, I don't care, stop talking about it. If you can't understand why I, as a consumer, don't want to spend the full retail price for a game that could have been produced in 1992, that's cool.

As I've said, countless times before, developers/publishers should charge whatever they feel will create the most profit for them. I was just pointing out that in the past, games being developed on the lower end of things, are released cheaper than retail games, and when the industry has had an increase in development costs (moving from one platform to a more advanced one) then retail games also increased in price.

I don't understand why my hope for a downloadable release is apparently a bigger issue to some of you than a new Zelda game.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Has Nintendo ever released a downloada-only new game like that?

Edited April 13, 2012 by Faiblesse Des Sens

[TCP]

Not that I'm aware of. Which is one of the reasons I think it'll probably end up a retail game. And I'll end up buying it, first day, like a chump.

[TheMightyEthan]

lol, ordinarily I would have been jumping on news of a new Zelda game, but I don't own a 3DS and don't expect that to change any time soon.

[FMW]

If Link to the Past really is what they choose to build on/be inspired by, I hope they add some more direction to the game. Link to the Past just kind of dropped you in and left you to find the stuff you needed. Some old school gamers tend to like that, but I actively dislike it. I prefer to face a series of challenges in sequence set up such that they will teach me game mechanics and test me along a reasonable difficulty curve. Time spent just wandering around wondering "what on earth does the game want me to do to progress now?" is just empty game time I think. WHAT to do should not be in question, I far prefer Zelda now that the focus has shifted over to HOW to achieve a clear objective.