Looking at my game shelf I can see 3 gamecube games that had impressive open world play. Both True Crime Streets of LA/New York and Zelda Wind Waker also The Godfather blackhand edition on Wii was huge probably not to PS360 standards these days but I thought they were great technical feats on weaker hardware. It comes down to lazy development why more of these games were not realised on Wii.

Lol. No they didn't. Skyward Sword was the "bigger is better" philosophy applied to the Zelda series. It was the biggest, grandest, most epic Zelda game to date. It also conformed completely to the traditional Zelda formula.

I get tired of people saying "this Zelda mixes things up!" with every new Zelda game. They did with Twilight Princess, Spirit Tracks, Phantom Hourglass, the works. A new gimmick =/= new formula. New formula would be if Nintendo did something dramatic and broke away from the now incredibly boring "go to dungeon, solve puzzle to get item, use item to defeat boss, go to next dungeon" formula.

No. It comes down to a business decision. There is no such thing as a lazy developer if there was genuine money to be made on a potential project. Unfortunately for Nintendo fans, most of the people who like open world games have PS3s or Xbox 360s, so it was a better commercial decision for developers to release those games on those formats.

Such as Zelda 2 right Chocobo? (Which hasn't been done again since).

Maybe that is the reason why alot of these developers are going out of business and trimming down their staff because they released games on the 2 systems that share a flooded market of exact replicas of the same software on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis and I'm not to believe there's no such thing as lazy development and people call it a good business decision.
LOL of the day.

The reason a lot of developers are going out of business is because it is really freaking hard to make money out of something as commiditised as game entertainment.

You can believe me or not, I don't care. But the game industry isn't high school, and game development isn't doing homework. These are businesses and they're motivated by making money. The decisions they make might be wrong at times, but that's a consequence of misreading the market more than such a childish concept of 'being lazy.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Oc...

No. It does change up the formula in certain ways, such as the removal of the huge over world. Now it's just the sky, which isn't close to the same thing. In no way am I trying to say that it changed from older games an adequate amount. The game obviously is still mired in tradition. I didn't even like Skyward Sword, but you'd have to be blind to think that it's the exact same game as twilight princess. Also no.

It's not the exact same game, but it does follow the formula. Nintendo should really start taking more risks, trying out new ideas for their games. They won't lose sales so long as it still has the Zelda or Mario name on it. Their games are kind of getting old as time goes by. We've seen all they have to offer in terms of gameplay. It's only the settings that ever really change now.

And for the record, Skyward Sword was totally not the biggest and grandest Zelda.

The last time Nintendo took a risk it didn't end so well sales wise or fanbase wise. Metroid Other M

some tl;dr but Mr. Dynasty/Samurai Warriors seemingly complaining about a lack of innovation in a series is pretty amusing. (Just so you know, I kinda completely don't care whether that series actually is or not.)

I'm mixed about how much they changed in Skyward Sword. It isn't like they changed the formula as much as kinda turned it on it's side. Honestly if they changed more I would have forgiven the many small nitpicks I had with Skyward Sword and it could have ended up in like my top 5 games ever. Maybe.

What I personally want to see is an epic trilogy (and maybe since it's Nintendo they might make a trilogy that is actually only 3 games long. Please?) on Wii U and make a traditional game on 3DS. Everyone wins. You have multiple systems Nintendo. Take advantage of that fact.

some tl;dr but Mr. Dynasty/Samurai Warriors seemingly complaining about a lack of innovation in a series is pretty amusing. (Just so you know, I kinda completely don't care whether that series actually is or not.)

Then don't bring it up. The Warriors games change a heck of a lot more from game to game than the Zelda games.

No. It does change up the formula in certain ways, such as the removal of the huge over world. Now it's just the sky, which isn't close to the same thing. In no way am I trying to say that it changed from older games an adequate amount. The game obviously is still mired in tradition. I didn't even like Skyward Sword, but you'd have to be blind to think that it's the exact same game as twilight princess. Also no.

Then you missed what I was saying entirely. The Zelda formula is not "open world." The Zelda formula is "Enter dungeon, solve puzzle, earn item, use item to defeat boss, enter next dungeon." Skyward Sword didn't mess with that formula in the slightest, and gimmicks aside I may as well have been playing Ocarina of Time.

No they don't.

Yes they do. I've played more of them than you have, I'll wager.

Yeah, but Metroid isn't nearly as big as Zelda or Mario, and Other M wasn't on the same level of quality as the rest of Nintendo's main games.

Thatsthejoke.jpg

Considering that they come out multiple times every year, Tecmo barely adds any innovative features to the new iterations. Whereas Zelda doesn't come out every year and the teams that make the games take their time. The last console Zelda we had was back in 2006.

Didn't a zelda come out last year.

I was talking about before Skyward Sword. Since 2006 we've seen two console Zelda games.

I know what you meant.