Support NeoGAF

[Shikamaru Ninja]

Well we know now that the next projected date is approximately April 2006. Many consider that Nintendo is going to take a big hit in sales because of it. Some of us have already speculated what a smarter move it would be to bump Zelda to the Nintendo Revolution. Nintendo of course is not going to publicly agree with that statement at the time being. But there are a couple of important things to consider.

1)What if Zelda sees another slight delay. Can Nintendo release Zelda in the Summer or almost Fall of 2006? Will Nintendo get the profit they were expecting from this high R&D project?

2)What about not having a Mario at launch, but a new exciting Zelda. Never been done before. The mix of a highly anticipated Smash Bros. sequel and Zelda may be the greatest 1-2 punch the company has ever packed for a hardware launch.

Discuss the pros and cons my GA friends.

Me. I say the GameCube is dead in 2006. Bump that game to Revolution and make it compatible with Zelda DS.

 

[Prince of Space]

While I REALLY don't want to wait that much longer for TP, it'd make a helluva launch title.

 

[GDGF]

It would be great if they could somehow have higher quality assets hidden on the disc that gave the game vastly improved graphics when played on the Revolution. Kill two birds with one stone.

 

[GitarooMan]

Me. I say the GameCube is dead in 2006. Bump that game to Revolution and make it compatible with Zelda DS.

I think this makes sense because the Cube will be gone in '06, as long as there is a least a small graphics upgrade. Otherwise that would be like Sony launching PS3 with FFXII.

 

[Ark-AMN]

If Nintendo just wants Zelda as a game to sell, then they might as well just release it on the Cube. If they want Zelda to potentially move hardware, then they should move it to the Revolution, because the GameCube can no longer benefit from a Zelda, especially in 2006, but the Revolution could.

 

[SantaC]

While it's a possibility, there are two things why I don't think Nintendo will do this.

1. Since the game is built for GC, I doubt this game would be able to show of some of Revolutions "new" functions.

2. I am not sure it's a good move to launch a current-gen game on a next-gen system.


I think that Nintendo should release this game a couple of months ahead of Revolution. Then it could sell for Gamecube, AND pickup sales for the Rev launch.

 

[Idioteque]

I'd like Zelda to come out next June as a Gamecube title.

It would be the perfect game to play during the summer.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

I mean come on. Is Nintendo planning this themselves? This could all be the correct public relations way of doing it. We won't have Zelda this Fall, but it will come out "soon" in like 2006.

 

[Wafflecopter]

It would be even more expensive to revamp the game with a new graphics engine than to lose sales.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

This new Zelda would just be more impactful on the Revolution as a launch or near-launch title than coming out for the GameCube in Summer 2006. Remember what happened to Conker??

I mean what impact will it have on the GameCube. Less people may buy it that even Wind Waker thanks to missing this last big critical holiday season for the GameCube. (Realistically). Even worse is that if GameCube Zelda comes out in Summer 2006, you won't see Aonuma's team crank out a Revolution Zelda until Q4 2008 at best. Nintendo might not be able to afford that.

 

[Mrbob]

Revolution is BC with Gamecube.

Nintendo may be thinking the game will get extra sales with people who buy a revolution and don't own a GC.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

It would be even more expensive to revamp the game with a new graphics engine than to lose sales.

Hardware sales. Impact. Defining Image. Much more important and critical.

 

[heidern]

Putting Zelda:TP on the GC in 2006 is insane. Right now the GC sells ~13K a month in Japan and 50K a month in the USA. Next year the GC may be selling as low as 30-40K month worldwide. That is not the environment to do Zelda justice.

Not only that, but Twilight Princess is a huge about face for Nintendo. What's the term used? Mature Zelda. Putting this onto the Revolution with souped up graphics and all, well it's an open goal and could be just like Mario 64 where they can hype it up the Revolution as launching with the best game of all time. Except this time they are launching a game that is not kiddie but is age neutral in its appeal. In fact I'd go so far as to say that if this does become the true successor to OoT and launches with the Rev it would actually give Nintendo a serious chance against Sony/MS.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

They sure as hell better not move it to Rev, I want it on GC and as soon as possible.

 

[SantaC]

I am sure getting impatient with this game. I would be very pretty pissed to wait another 4 months or so of delay if it's bumped to a Q4 2006 rev Launch.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

I am sure getting impatient with this game. I would be very pretty pissed to wait another 4 months or so of delay if it's bumped to a Q4 2006 rev Launch.

Think about it though. Say you get the game December 2006 instead of June. You get a next-gen game, and you see Nintendo trying to really push their hardware with their Aces. Isn't it worth it ?

 

[tehrik-e-insaaf]

It would be smarter to play up the backwards compatibility of the Revolution and transfer the game's potential console selling power from the Gamecube to the Revolution while making everyone happy. As the N64 ports have shown -- even N64 games that were moved to the Gamecube have not really been viewed as anything other than ports due to the underlying technology. It makes no sense to waste time trying to port a game that has been built from the ground up for Gamecube.

 

[Ecrofirt]

Seasons/Oracles and GBA came out around the same time. I think they bothed helped each other.

 

[radrelic]

Nintendo should move it to Revolution. I suspect though, that a Revolution switch would piss off a large amount of GameCube owners.

 

[SantaC]

Think about it though. Say you get the game December 2006 instead of June. You get a next-gen game, and you see Nintendo trying to really push their hardware with their Aces. Isn't it worth it ?

yes IF it's a next-gen game. They might not improve anything from the GC build.

 

[Deku Tree]

Zelda TP already looks better than some of the x360 screens we are seeing. They should put in on Rev.

 

[Bboy AJ]

I can guarantee for a fact that this game is not getting moved to the Revolution. They would have kept it under wraps if that were true.

Moreover, the ability of the Revolution to be backwards compatible helps ease Nintendo to push the game back.

 

[Zylander]

This would not surprise me in the slightest.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

I don't know shit about developing games, but wouldn't it be very difficult to make Zelda a Revolution title at this stage in its' development? A complete graphic overhaul of a game this massive doesn't seem like an easy thing to do, especially if it's only a six month or so delay from the projected April release date to a Fall 06 Revolution launch.

And really, I don't think Nintendo is going to lose that many sales because of the delay. Isn't pretty much everyone who has a Gamecube and still plays it going to buy this game, no matter when it's released? If this was 2002 and Nintendo thought they could sell some more GC hardware over the holiday season with a Zelda release, maybe it would be bad, but the GC is pretty much dead now.

 

[GitarooMan]

And really, I don't think Nintendo is going to lose that many sales because of the delay. Isn't pretty much everyone who has a Gamecube and still plays it going to buy this game, no matter when it's released?

This is true, but I feel like it might get lost in the shuffle while people are playing Halo 3 and whatever PS3 launch games there are. It may be a lot like Majora's Mask, which was released right at PS2 launch. Great game, but seems a little forgotten in the long run because it was overshadowed

 

[Unison]

Has the Revolution been confirmed as launching in any particular quarter? I thought Nintendo has just said "2006" thus far...

 

[INTERNET]

Seasons/Oracles and GBA came out around the same time. I think they bothed helped each other.

I think that's a good model for what is going to happen; Zelda launches on the Gamecube around the revolution launch date, and (like the Oracle games with the GBA and Link's Awakening DX with the GBC) will add extra hardware-specific features when played on the Revolution.

 

[Oblivion]

I guess I wouldn't mind if it came out on the Rev. However, if it does that, then that would officially make the GC the weakest Nintendo console in history (first party game quality wise).

Still, I don't want it to be a launch title. Let's be traditional and have Mario. Zelda can come out 6 months later or so.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

This is true, but I feel like it might get lost in the shuffle while people are playing Halo 3 and whatever PS3 launch games there are.

Yeah, but that's assuming that the PS3 and Halo 3 will launch in the Spring. Even if they do, it's important to remember that many millions of people still buy old generation software long after the new generation machines are released. It may not seem like that from reading GAF, but GAF isn't indicative of the overall market at all. If it were, we'd still be playing Dreamcast and obscure Japanese RPGs would top the sales charts.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

This is true, but I feel like it might get lost in the shuffle while people are playing Halo 3 and whatever PS3 launch games there are. It may be a lot like Majora's Mask, which was released right at PS2 launch. Great game, but seems a little forgotten in the long run because it was overshadowed

And the N64 had a larger userbase than the GameCube. Twilight Princess is also a more "significant" sequel than Majora's Mask as far as the statement Nintendo was trying to make.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

This new Zelda would just be more impactful on the Revolution as a launch or near-launch title than coming out for the GameCube in Summer 2006. Remember what happened to Conker??

I also remember that when they decided to kick up the graphics, it wasn't a quick process. Nor for Eternal Darkness. Or Dinosaur Planet.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

This new Zelda would just be more impactful on the Revolution as a launch or near-launch title than coming out for the GameCube in Summer 2006. Remember what happened to Conker??

I really don't think Conker's release late in the N64's life was the most important factor to its' crap sales. It was an M-Rated cartoon squirrel game that was $60, $10 more than most, if not all, N64 releases at that time. Same with Perfect Dark, M-Rated titles just didn't sell well on N64.

And the N64 had a larger userbase than the GameCube.

While you're here, I'm curious as to what the N64's final userbase was, and what the Gamecube's userbase is now.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

I also remember that when they decided to kick up the graphics, it wasn't a quick process. Nor for Eternal Darkness. Or Dinosaur Planet.

Well of course my friend. One thing I believe is that the Revolution won't be as big as a jump from the GameCube, as it was from the N64. (Same way I feel XBOX-X360 isn't as big as a jump from PSX-PS2 or N64-GC).

Another thing if any team is able to handle it, is Aonuma's Zelda team. The biggest core development group at Nintendo. They have also continously worked with each other and on the Zelda franchise since 1996.

Same with Perfect Dark, M-Rated titles just didn't sell well on N64.

Perfect Dark came out late but not as late as Conker, but it still sold at least 2 million in North America. That is pretty good. If M rated games sold bad, how the hell did the Turok Franchise gross so much money.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

What is that, like a final FU to Gamecube owners?!

 

[Particle Physicist]

if nintendo bumped zelda up for revolution.. they'd have a killer launch

 

[G4life98]

releasing TP this late in the life of the GC would be a waste of a big franchise release, but the problem is there is absolutely not enough time to revamp zelda and make it look next gen.

it would be awesome is they could load the the game with rev specific bonuses that use the interface and maybe some free downloads of past zelda games.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

1. Zelda: Twilight Princess
2. Super Smash Bros
3. Super Mario Revolution
4. Metroid Prime 3
5. New IP


Why not? Why can't those be the first 5 scheduled Revolution games.

 

[mj1108]

if nintendo bumped zelda up for revolution.. they'd have a killer launch

Zelda + online Smash Bros at launch = Nintendo for teh win.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

how the hell did the Turok Franchise gross so much money.

That's a question for philosophers, like why does a just God allow evil to exist in the world, and why do bad things happen to good people.

 

[God's Hand]

1. Zelda: Twilight Princess
2. Super Smash Bros
3. Super Mario Revolution
4. Metroid Prime 3
5. New IP


Why not? Why can't those be the first 5 scheduled Revolution games.

You're joking, right? Nintendo would never launch with FOUR huge titles like that at once.

 

[Kangu]

Why is it always the Nintendo fanboys who come up with these ridiculous fantasy land scenarios?

It won't happen. First of all because they would have to redo all of the art assets, that would take an eternity and cost a bunch of money.

Secondly because the Cube already has an established base of close to 20 million ready to buy the game. No mater how well the Revolution sells it's not selling 20 million in its first year.

Last but most important, if the Revolution is such a revolution but the flagship launch title is a port of Zelda that could have been on the cube then consumers aren't exactly going to be buying into the whole revolution thing.

 

[G4life98]

I really don't think Conker's release late in the N64's life was the most important factor to its' crap sales. It was an M-Rated cartoon squirrel game that was $60, $10 more than most, if not all, N64 releases at that time. Same with Perfect Dark, M-Rated titles just didn't sell well on N64.



While you're here, I'm curious as to what the N64's final userbase was, and what the Gamecube's userbase is now.

your letting the gc cloud your memory here...it wasnt the m-rating that hurt PD...more than anything it was the expansion pak requirement to fully function.

 

[Oblivion]

While you're here, I'm curious as to what the N64's final userbase was, and what the Gamecube's userbase is now.

N64: Over 30 million
GC: A little over 18 million

1. Zelda: Twilight Princess
2. Super Smash Bros
3. Super Mario Revolution
4. Metroid Prime 3
5. New IP

No, no, no a thousand times no!! Putting so many badass launch titles will only fuck up each other.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

You're joking, right? Nintendo would never launch with FOUR huge titles like that at once.

I didn't say at once. That's impossible.

 

[BorkBork]

1. Zelda: Twilight Princess
2. Super Smash Bros
3. Super Mario Revolution
4. Metroid Prime 3
5. New IP


Why not? Why can't those be the first 5 scheduled Revolution games.

Hmm the more I think about it, the more I think that Twilight will be a GC title with some sort of major upgrade when played on Rev. That would explain all the "incredible elements" (maybe BS, maybe not?) they wanted to add, plus add some ummph to Rev's launch lineup.

But since it's unlikely that Rev will launch before next year's E3, will that mean Zelda will be delayed one whole year until the next holiday season? I don't know how I would feel about that. On one hand, it would totally own as a launch lineup to have listed in Ninja's post, but waiting another year more for it... oh man..

 

[teh_pwn]

1. Zelda: Twilight Princess
2. Super Smash Bros
3. Super Mario Revolution
4. Metroid Prime 3
5. New IP


Why not? Why can't those be the first 5 scheduled Revolution games.

Because this is Nintendo. They delay everything.

Gamecube was supposed to have 5 Retro launch titles, Star Fox Adventures, and eternal darkness at launch.

I seriously doubt Nintendo would redo the Zelda engine in a mere what, 8 months? This is Nintendo, not Factor 5.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I don't know. It seems to me that for good or ill they should get the Zelda game out a bit sooner as an apology to GC fans that have watched it slowly die. With Zelda out of the picture for the GC in the immediate future the horizon just flattens as far as important content. I can imagine that pissing off at least a few consumers who won't want to take that risk again. They can't keep losing people from console to console like that. I understand that there is a core audience that will always buy Nintendo, but that audience isn't large enough.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

Read what i said damnit. I said scheduled. Not launch titles. These games would come in succession after each other. Not all on one day.

 

[BorkBork]

Because this is Nintendo. They delay everything.

Gamecube was supposed to have 5 Retro launch titles, Star Fox Adventures, and eternal darkness at launch.

Star Fox = Rare
Eternal Darkness = Silicon Knights
Five Retro titles? I can only think of the two announced before they were canned for Prime

Actually one of the complaints about Nintendo is that their games didn't have the polish they had in previous generations because they WERE NOT delayed enough this generation. The only major game I can remember that was delayed was Pikmin 2, and that turned out to be one of their best efforts.

 

[Vieo]

I wouldn't mind if they pushed TP to Rev's launch. Though, I don't think they should should launch Rev with all of their top games. They should try to space them out some over the months.

I'd also prefer if they dusted off some of their old 8bit/16bit stuff and gave us updated versions. Games like Star Tropics, Gyromite, Icarus, ExciteBike, etc.