If Zelda + Skyrim doesn't make your mouth water, I don't know what would.
Zelda + Xenoblade sure would. I couldn't get into Skyrim for long, partly because it seemed detached from fantasy. Most of the setting that I explored in my several hours with the game were woods, old-fashioned/stone villages and caves.
"The secret to ultimate power lies in the Alimbic Cluster."
Retro Studios also got bought out by Nintendo after Metroid Prime, though Game Freak is 3rd party, while Nintendo owns the Pokemon IP and all that. (Nintendo just pays big bucks for them to make games exclusively)
@8BitSamurai Nintendo doesn't own GameFreak, which is why it is a second party developer.
A second party classifies any developer or development party that is not owned by a bigger company but shares an exclusivity contract with them. While Nintendo doesn't own GameFreak itself, it still ain't going anywhere because of their contract. By this point, I don't think they even need a contract; GameFreak has understood that its future lies with Nintendo. It's only a matter of time before they settle in with each other and move forward to the next step in their relationship.
A second party classifies any developer or development party that is not owned by a bigger company but shares an exclusivity contract with them. While Nintendo doesn't own GameFreak itself, it still ain't going anywhere because of their contract. By this point, I don't think they even need a contract; GameFreak has understood that its future lies with Nintendo. It's only a matter of time before they settle in with each other and move forward to the next step in their relationship.
@8BitSamurai Nintendo doesn't own GameFreak, which is why it is a second party developer.
A second party classifies any developer or development party that is not owned by a bigger company but shares an exclusivity contract with them. While Nintendo doesn't own GameFreak itself, it still ain't going anywhere because of their contract. By this point, I don't think they even need a contract; GameFreak has understood that its future lies with Nintendo. It's only a matter of time before they settle in with each other and move forward to the next step in their relationship.
Yeah, second-party developer was probably a better wording, but really, nobody here knows the exact details of whatever contracts they have, so 3rd party isn't really incorrect by what we know.
EDIT: Sorry, sorry, my bad, didn't see your old post saying Game Freak was 2nd party right. My bad, my bad. I didn't read it right at all.
@WingedFish
Yeah, Monolith is a 1st party studio, Nintendo owns the whole kit and caboodle, which is good, since Monolith is an amazing developer.
Well, sometimes people on Ebay and Amazon will sell it for $85-$95. It is a 60+ hour amazing game, so you do get your moneys worth at least. Too bad it came so late in the Wii's lifespan, or they might have done another print. (Then again probably not, considering we barely got it in the first place)
@Nobodys_Angel: Thanks, man. So companies like Retro and Intelligent Systems aren't 2nd party, right? So 2nd Party can create games of there own minds without supervision from the 1st-party company, but vow to make games exclusive to that 1st-party company's console?
Really? Huh. Why was Xenosaga on not-Nintendo then?
from wiki
The company was founded on October 1, 1999 by producer Hirohide Sugiura and director Tetsuya Takahashi after they left Square Co. and accepted an investment from Namco.[2] As of May 6, 2007, Nintendo owned controlling interest in the company after Namco Bandai sold 80% of its 96% stake in Monolith Soft to Nintendo. This went into effect May 1, 2007.[3] Later Namco sold the remaining 16%, making Monolith Soft a first-party developer for Nintendo.
The company announced on July 8, 2011 that they were opening up an additional studio in Kyoto, Japan.[4] They are currently developing games for both the Wii U[5] and the Nintendo 3DS.[6]
Game Industry News; Discussed and Debated - Pauseyourgame.com
The only thing I think Zelda could really take from a game like Skyrim, is the big world. Obviously, no one has any REAL idea outside of Nintendo about the game, but I think a bigger world, interesting large scope sidequests, etc. is what they're going for.
Imagine a sidequest that plays out like a dungeon in the overworld.
Again, no real clue. I just think the scope of the game and design ideas will be trying to make it as realistic as possible, while still retaining the games roots.
The first Zelda was built to explore and do the main quests as well.
And I thought having Hyrule Field be as big as the Great Sea was an interesting idea. Skyrim is in a whole nother league.
What would this mean for typical Zelda weapons though? I mean, before you'd always just get one weapon and that'd be the ultimate, hero version of that weapon. It's really a western thing to have a disposable weapon that you just throw away or sell after you find a better one.
Maybe this means that instead of only having the dungeons necessary to move forward, there'd be a hundred different forest temples and a hundred different water temples and fire temples that could be explored at your leisure and are prompted by NPCs. Side questing would be 99% of the game.
Epona would be useful traversing that huge distance, but you'd also have a wider variety of enemies out in the wild, some of which would just flat out overpower you earlier on like Skyrim Giants. Not to mention random boss fights like the Dragon attacks. Does that mean that everything you explore and kill would have a small reward like a new weapon or new armor or something valuable that sells for a lot?
Not really. Aonuma just said that he wants to replicate the feelings that players get from a game like Skyrim. Mechanically that tells us nothing about the game. In the end it could just be another traditional Zelda game. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
It would be hard to replicate that feeling without using any of the mechanical elements. Skyrim wasn't loved because it had 'personality', there were objectively satisfying aspects of the game.
I don't expect the next Zelda to be a Skyrim clone, but expanding upon elements from that game may make the series a bit more popular outside of Nintendo's cult following.
I would argue otherwise on being only able to convey a feeling through a specific set of mechanics, but there's a bigger problem (see bold words); "Objectively Satisfying Aspects" is a contradictory statement. You can't say that everybody likes/will like Y because of reason X. Tastes vary from person to person that it would be ludicrously difficult to find something which everybody could agree on being "Satisfying", especially when that thing does not directly affect its user.
Also, yes, Zelda adopting Skyrim-esque mechanics would make the series popular outside of the core fanbase. I don't doubt you about that.
Thanks given to Xkhaoz for that one avatar. Please contact me before using my custom avatar!
A (Former) Reviewer for Digitally Downloaded.net
My Backloggery: http://backloggery.com/v8_ninja
Forums
Topic: Zelda Wii U Will Be More Like Skyrim
Posts 21 to 40 of 60
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.