Support NeoGAF

[SantaC]

I decided to post this since I read IGN mailbag yesterday, and I reacted to this quote:

IGN-Juan answers if new Zelda could be delayed to revolution:

As far as Zelda being used as a launch title for the Revolution, well, it's possible. Does it make good sense? Yeah, it does.

Fact is, Nintendo will need killer software to compete against the PS3 and Xbox: The Sequel. The real question is: what other titles is Nintendo working on? If Nintendo needs Zelda to strengthen Revolution's lineup, then it will be delayed. Either way, Zelda will sell. By holding back, Nintendo can milk the game both ways: to help sell a system and to continue the series.

No it doesn't make sense imo. If Nintendo just could get a new Mario launch game this time around it would do fine anyway.

1. Why should Nintendo scrap all the engine work they did on the new GC zelda? If new Zelda was delayed for the revolution, Nintendo would need to recode alot of stuff in order to take advantage of better graphics on the new machine. As an example look at Eternal Darkness. Alot of work wasted. Idiotic.

2. Gamecube needs to sell in 2005! What AAA does Nintendo have planned for the Gamecube in 2005? Nothing. Gamecube needs Zelda or they won't have any killer games. (RE4 in january wont make it last all year)

3. The Revolution will have its Zelda anyway, so I just don't see the point of it other that we gamers would have to wait an extra year! No thanks.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

s pec ul at ion

 

[Alcibiades]

lmao, Iwata, (or was it Reggie or Harrison) himself said "one company wants to end the generation early". Either way, then Nintendo reiterated that they would launch around the time of their main competitor, and I don't think they were talking about Microsoft.

I expect Revolution at the earliest Fall 2006 (and a 18-month period to prepare software beforehand), maybe even '07. Miyamoto said he wanted GCN to last till 2007, but competition has them now saying "time period of their main competitor".

 

[SantaC]

s pec ul at ion

Of course it was speculation. I just gave my 2 cents why I wouldn't want it on revolution.

Anyway, off to party! I am 25 years old today

 

[Scrow]

Nintendo need to launch Revolution with Metroid.

 

[Falch]

I expect Revolution to launch with what was formerly known as Super Mario 128.

Zelda will be on GC, I'm sure of it.

 

[Hooker]

They should launch with (asuming they'll launch the system November -- and this is the minimum, not solely these titles):

Super Mario 128
Pilotwings Revolution

A month later Super Smash Brothers 3 & Pokémon MMORPG

Animal Crossing MMORPG for the draught in winter

PIKMIN spring

Metroid just before the summer

Zelda and Mario Kart Christmas titles.

The other games (new franchises) fit anywhere you want.

 

[Mrbob]

Revolution doesn't need a rehash game to make an impact. It needs a brand new, huge open ending, sprawling game that draws people back to Nintendo once more. It can fill out the rest of the lineup with sequel-itis, but they need one huge brand new heavy hitter.

 

[ToyMachine228]

Zelda 2005 is running on The Wind Waker engine. Slightly modified, but still the Wind Waker engine.

 

[God's Hand]

Who the fuck is Juan and why does anyone think he knows anything worth 2 shits? The mailbag is boring and irrelevant with this mook running it.

 

[Deg]

I decided to post this since I read IGN mailbag yesterday, and I reacted to this quote:

IGN-Juan answers if new Zelda could be delayed to revolution:



No it doesn't make sense imo. If Nintendo just could get a new Mario launch game this time around it would do fine anyway.

1. Why should Nintendo scrap all the engine work they did on the new GC zelda? If new Zelda was delayed for the revolution, Nintendo would need to recode alot of stuff in order to take advantage of better graphics on the new machine. As an example look at Eternal Darkness. Alot of work wasted. Idiotic.

2. Gamecube needs to sell in 2005! What AAA does Nintendo have planned for the Gamecube in 2005? Nothing. Gamecube needs Zelda or they won't have any killer games. (RE4 in january wont make it last all year)

3. The Revolution will have its Zelda anyway, so I just don't see the point of it other that we gamers would have to wait an extra year! No thanks.

It will stay on GC. You are insane if you think they will move it now.

 

[NWO]

No it doesn't make sense imo. If Nintendo just could get a new Mario launch game this time around it would do fine anyway.

I don't think so. Only Mario isn't going to get people to buy their new console. Nintendo needs Smash Brothers Online AND Mario plus some new title at launch and I think they will be fine. Who isn't going to buy Smash Brothers Online? Nobody.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

The GC early line-up was plagued with ported n64 games, so it's not like it's impossible.

 

[worldrunover]

The GC early line-up was plagued with ported n64 games, so it's not like it's impossible.

Plagued is a pretty harsh word. Most of those games were pretty damn good (and benefited greatly from the move).

I personally don't care either way, as long as it comes out the same time regardless. If it gets delayed until 2006 because it got moved to the next system, I'd be pissed.

 

[jarrod]

Revolution doesn't need a rehash game to make an impact. It needs a brand new, huge open ending, sprawling game that draws people back to Nintendo once more. It can fill out the rest of the lineup with sequel-itis, but they need one huge brand new heavy hitter.

So Mario 128 it is then.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

I'm so against moving late-gen games onto the new system. We've seen from past cases (Eternal Darkness, Star Fox Adventures) that it doesn't necessarily make the game better, and that having that foundation on the previous system does not necessarily make it easier to have the new version finished by the system launch.

 

[CajoleJuice]

I'd say launch with Mario and if they can another new franchise. Two must-have games would be more than any of the systems that launched this generation except DC (Sonic and Soul Calibur). Oh wait, that didn't help DC. Shit.

 

[jarrod]

-Super Mario 128 (EAD)
-PilotWings Revolution (Factor 5/NST)
-Pikmin 3 (EAD)
-Thunder Rally (Retro)

...would be a nice spread.

 

[AniHawk]

What I'd REALLY like to see at launch:

Super Mario 128
Super Smash Bros. vs. Sega Fighters Megamix (including Sonic the Fighters characters)

Then a little down the line, I'd love to see a Super Mario/Sonic the Hedgehog crossover platformer. Like Crash Purple and Spyro Orange, but good.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

Super Mario Revolution (EAD)
New Franchise (EAD)
Super Smash Bros 3 (HAL)
Punch-Out (Retrostudios)
Pilotwings (NST)

That sounds like the launch menu from Nintendo's premier studios.

 

[open_mouth_]

Super Mario Revolution (EAD)
New Franchise (EAD)
Super Smash Bros 3 (HAL)
Punch-Out (Retrostudios)
Pilotwings (NST)

That sounds like the launch menu from Nintendo's premier studios.

That would be very solid, especially if those games are all 8.5's or above.

 

[Mama Smurf]

That IGN guy doesn't know shit. I hate it when people use Q&As as their own personal messageboard. Mary-Jane did it and now this guy is. Matt gets N-Query right, he generally answers with facts or rumours he's heard. Not speculation which they should know some people are going to think is a hint just because IGN said it.

As for the Revolution launch, I'm sure there won't be any problem getting Mario, Smash Bros, Pilotwings and another EAD game ready for launch. Assuming it's coming Fall 2006 anyway. Plus the Tokyo studio who are making Jungle Beat were formed to focus on the next gen, so who knows what else they're up to.

Nintendo have so many huge franchises though (and decent selling ones too), they should never have a problem getting big games out at key times. I'm sort of going away from the topic here, but the Revolution could go something like this:

Launch - Xmas 2006:

Mario
Smash Bros
Pokemon

Fall/Xmas 2007:

Metroid
Pikmin
Mario Kart

Fall/Xmas 2008:

Zelda
Donkey Kong
Kirby

Fall/Xmas 2009:

Sequels to 2006/7 games.

And of course throughout those years you'd have games like Animal Crossing, Wave Race, 1080, Pilotwings, F-Zero, Fire Emblem, Starfox, Mario Party/Tennis/Golf, Yoshi etc. releasing at the non-holiday times. Some new franchises too hopefully.

Never seems to work out that way though.

 

[Phoenix]

New Zelda better stay on the cube because this is likely the last Nintendo I'm getting. Revolution would have to be better than PS2 and Xbox2 combines before I even consider purchasing it. Since the Nintendo64, Nintendo has done nothing but consistently disappoint me.

 

[ge-man]

This is coming for GC. I don't see why it would be pushed back when the engine is mostly finished, leaving a huge amount of time for producing solid content. Nintendo needs a strong release to close out the GC and I think a new Zelda would be the best thing in that regard. Leave the next Mario for the Revolution's launch.

 

[ge-man]

Pilotwings (NST)

So does that mean that Factor 5 is no longer working closely with Nintendo? I haven't heard anything concrete about their next gen plans.

 

[jarrod]

I'd like to see Retro work on their own new franchise rather than revive something else from R&D1... why is it EAD only gets to do the new thing?

 

[Mama Smurf]

Well, when everything new outside of Nintendo's own, long established studios is either extremely poor or doesn't sell anywhere near normal standards, you can hardly blame them for giving them franchises instead.

For Retro I'd personally like to see a Metroid with the Revolution's graphics/unique interface (whatever that turns out to be) and THEN let them do something different.

 

[jarrod]

For Retro I'd personally like to see a Metroid with the Revolution's graphics/unique interface (whatever that turns out to be) and THEN let them do something different.

A 3rd parson Metroid perhaps?

 

[IAmtheFMan]

Super Mario Revolution (EAD)
New Franchise (EAD)
Super Smash Bros 3 (HAL)
Punch-Out (Retrostudios)
Pilotwings (NST)

That sounds really good, although I think Pilotwings would still be developed by Factor 5.

I think adding something like locking down some exclusive, epic RPG (maybe from Brownie Brown or throw some-more money Square's way) in addition to a really good FPS would be the best way to start off.

 

[Mama Smurf]

Well, maybe, if they feel the need to do so, but personally I think Nintendo should look to Retro for the next game that'll appeal to gamers in the same way Goldeneye and Halo have these last 2 generations. Metroid Prime sold well and reviewed even better, but it never really brought people over to the console.

There's no doubt Retro can do "cool" though, something Nintendo frequently seem unwilling to do even though we know full well they can (1080 and the next Zelda being perfect examples), so I'd be after something like that from then.

 

[FitzOfRage]

I expect Revolution at the earliest Fall 2006 (and a 18-month period to prepare software beforehand), maybe even '07. Miyamoto said he wanted GCN to last till 2007, but competition has them now saying "time period of their main competitor".

I think that quote was always taken the wrong way, because how long you want the GC to last, and when you want to launch the next system are really different issues. I think he wanted the GC to last a long time the way previous successful systems like the NES , SNES, and PS1 lasted at least that long. Their successors were launched before then, but they continued to receive developer and consumer support for years, as opposed to the N64, which almost everyone (including Nintendo) had stopped supporting by the time the GC launched.

 

[AniHawk]

Well, maybe, if they feel the need to do so, but personally I think Nintendo should look to Retro for the next game that'll appeal to gamers in the same way Goldeneye and Halo have these last 2 generations. Metroid Prime sold well and reviewed even better, but it never really brought people over to the console.

There's no doubt Retro can do "cool" though, something Nintendo frequently seem unwilling to do even though we know full well they can (1080 and the next Zelda being perfect examples), so I'd be after something like that from then.

Yeah, I hope Nintendo lets Retro do their own thing after Prime 2.

Fun fact: Metroid Prime is the most successful game in the franchise, if you do not count Japanese sales.

 

[Mama Smurf]

I think adding something like locking down some exclusive, epic RPG (maybe from Brownie Brown or throw some-more money Square's way)

Can anyone explain to me why we never seem to get good RPGs when systems launch? I mean, if there was one genre I would think you could plan out most of the game on paper before even seeing a systems specs, it'd be RPGs. Turnbased ones I'm talking about.

I mean you can do all the character art, all the landscape art, work out the battle system, how attacks will look, the story and dialogue before you even begin programming. So then all you have to do is start building that as soon as you get development kits, and there shouldn't be a problem getting it ready for launch.

I can understand third parties wanting to wait and see which console is going to be most popular, but what's Nintendo's excuse? They have Fire Emblem and Earthbound, two huge RPGs, either of which would be a huge pull at a Japanese launch. You could perhaps consider Paper Mario in that category too.

 

[Journeywalker]

Does anyone remember Matt C's editorial about moving late-release N64 titles to Gamecube? This one:

http://ign64.ign.com/articles/088/088426p1.html

So what happened to Conker's Bad Fur Day, Eternal Darkness, and Dinosaur Planet? Conker's sales on the dying N64, while disappointing, sit around a respectful 400,000 (iirc). Eternal Darkness was delayed until launch of Gamecube, then delayed once more until June 2002. Sales-to-date? 262,042. Dinosaur Planet saw numerous delays as well (to September 2002), but it saw good sales to the tune of 764,503 units.

Furthermore, Resident Evil 0, another game that made the jump, was delayed until November 2002 and sold 415,601 units.

Lesson? Nearly-complete software at the end of a console's lifespan, when shifted to the next console, has very little chance of making the launch window. Porting the code will simply not suffice, and much of the art must be completely redone. It's not as simple as many journalists make it seem. Time and money would be much better spent starting a secondary project for the next-gen system that can absorb the current game's artists and programmers once work finishes up.

 

[chocoholic]

It will stay on GC, I would prefer to see it on revolution, just to see Nintendo do better. A metroid game at launch would kick ass though and would cancel the need to put Zelda on Revolution

 

[IAmtheFMan]

Well, I think it was a big mistake leaving Conker's on the 64, as opposed to any other of 'em. SF: Dinosaur Planet turned out to be a typical Rare fetch quest which had it been on the 64, would've at least held the tide until the Cube arrived.

If Conker's had been a launch title for the GC, (despite the fact that feasibly it would've never made it on time) it would've shown people that Nintendo was doing something different, was gonna be edgier, and (more than likely) would've sold a LOT more then what it did on the 64. Instead, Conker's on the 64 seemed like a desperate, last-ditch attempt to appeal to an older audience.

 

[AniHawk]

Well, I think it was a big mistake leaving Conker's on the 64, as opposed to any other of 'em. SF: Dinosaur Planet turned out to be a typical Rare fetch quest which had it been on the 64, would've at least held the tide until the Cube arrived.

If Conker's had been a launch title for the GC, (despite the fact that feasibly it would've never made it on time) it would've shown people that Nintendo was doing something different, was gonna be edgier, and (more than likely) would've sold a LOT more then what it did on the 64. Instead, Conker's on the 64 seemed like a desperate, last-ditch attempt to appeal to an older audience.

Funny how the same thing seems to be happening to the same game 3/4 years later.

 

[Tritroid]

I don't think they would have made such a huge deal about Zelda 05 at E3 (complete with Miyamoto's shield + sword entrance) if they weren't planning to release it on GC. They would have kept quiet about it only sneaking out a few words here and there to confirm that it still exists. (Like Mario 128)

 

[Deg]

I guess this is the inernet afterall.

 

[snapty00]

For Nintendo, I think it makes sense to release it on its next system. Unlike that stupid cel-shaded shit they tried to pull on GameCube, people actually want the new Zelda game after seeing a mere video of it. It's a game that Nintendo fans and a few casual players would buy a system for...nothing like Ocarina of Time but still significant.

For me though, it's bad. There's about a 80% chance that I won't be buying Nintendo's next console, so I hope and pray that the new Zelda is released on GameCube. If not, I guess I won't be playing Zelda games on consoles for a while.

 

[Ecrofirt]

I'll tell you what Revolution needs at launch.

-That fucking Mario 128, which I doubt was ever even in development
-A good FPS. In fact, a great FPS.

 

[AniHawk]

For Nintendo, I think it makes sense to release it on its next system. Unlike that stupid cel-shaded shit they tried to pull on GameCube

Fun fact #2: Believe it or not, but TWW has outsold the previous Zelda console game, and is on its way to selling the average amount a game in the franchise does.

Fun fact #3: The Wind Waker is fucking gorgeous.

 

[Mama Smurf]

-That fucking Mario 128, which I doubt was ever even in development

Oh please. As if Nintendo EVER don't have a Mario game in development.

 

[ge-man]

I think the deal with Mario is that Nintendo is having the same debate that we are having now about Zelda--should we release something on GC or push it back for the next console? This is why we haven't seen any substantial information about the game. I think this is the better decision--the Link character resonates more these days than Mario does with older gamers IMO. EAD using Zelda as their last flagship GC game is better in terms of attracting casual gamers as well showing that Nintendo has not forgotten hardcore gamers (which I think played in a large role in prompting a change in Zelda's direction).

 

[DSN2K]

keep it on GameCube, all the hard work making it look that good on the console cant go to waste.

 

[doncale]

it would be INSANE to put that new Zelda on Revolution. that would be like releasing MM on Gamecube instead of N64.

the new Zelda is built around GAMECUBE tech, not Revolution's tech.

I expect a near CG quality Zelda on Revolution in 2008.

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

Dear IGN,

STFU

Sincerely,

trippingmartian

 

[Vashu]

Revolution doesn't need a rehash game to make an impact. It needs a brand new, huge open ending, sprawling game that draws people back to Nintendo once more. It can fill out the rest of the lineup with sequel-itis, but they need one huge brand new heavy hitter.

One word.... Mother...

PS: Technically, that would be the true Mother of Revolution....

 

[JJConrad]

Well, I think it was a big mistake leaving Conker's on the 64, as opposed to any other of 'em. SF: Dinosaur Planet turned out to be a typical Rare fetch quest which had it been on the 64, would've at least held the tide until the Cube arrived.

If Conker's had been a launch title for the GC, (despite the fact that feasibly it would've never made it on time) it would've shown people that Nintendo was doing something different, was gonna be edgier, and (more than likely) would've sold a LOT more then what it did on the 64. Instead, Conker's on the 64 seemed like a desperate, last-ditch attempt to appeal to an older audience.

The problem with this idea is that Conkers and Dinosaur Planet were not at the stage of development. Had DP remained a N64 title, it may have been a launch title for the GCN. It would have been a lone game on an deserted console and wouldn't have help any. Conkers had been in developmet for several years by that time and was much further along. Had it been sent the GCN it would have meant even more work would have gone to waste. Had the the games been total interchangible, you'd probably be correct... there were other factors involve in deciding what went where.



If I were planning the Revloutions launch, I would release it in September '06. This would create 2 serpate windows to see strong growth; Lauch AND Christmas. Of course, that also means two windows that need games to fill them out.

Super Mario Bros. (EAD)
new franchise (EAD)
Super Smash Bros. (Hal)
Metroid Prime (Retro)
Madden 2007 (EA)
Soul Calibur 3 exclusive (Namco)
Resident Evil 5 exclusive (Capcom)

This would be a solid line-up but also gives plenty of room for other titles. The current development time for all of these games makes its possible for each of these games to be released in this timeframe. If anyone, Nintendo is in the best position to get SC3 and RE5 exclusive. The only two titles that HAVE to be true lauch titles are Mario and Madden (to get a slight edge on the PS3... assuming it's not already out by then).


Left overs & filler:
Mario Kart
Zelda
Pikmin
Pilotwings
Luigi's Mansion 2
Waverace
Star Fox
Sonic
Super Monkey Ball
Rogue Squadron

 

[jarrod]

Can anyone explain to me why we never seem to get good RPGs when systems launch? I mean, if there was one genre I would think you could plan out most of the game on paper before even seeing a systems specs, it'd be RPGs. Turnbased ones I'm talking about.

GBA had Rockman.EXE (and followed soon after with Tactics Ogre Gaiden, Bomberman Story & Golden Sun).