Actually reminds me of Bioshock Infinite.CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
Quad Dog said:CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
Why wouldn't you take a GOTY, improve and expand it for the sequel?
BenTheGoodAg said:Quad Dog said:CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
Why wouldn't you take a GOTY, improve and expand it for the sequel?
I'm fine with this, but pass the savings along to consumers. Charging $70 is kind of insulting for a game that has significantly lower development costs.
Just because a sequel uses the base of its predecessor as a jumping off point doesn't mean there's significantly lower development costs. When it comes out, Tears of the Kingdom will have been in development about as long as Breath of the Wild was.BenTheGoodAg said:Quad Dog said:CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
Why wouldn't you take a GOTY, improve and expand it for the sequel?
I'm fine with this, but pass the savings along to consumers. Charging $70 is kind of insulting for a game that has significantly lower development costs.
Tell me you know nothing about game development, without telling me you know nothing about game development.BenTheGoodAg said:Quad Dog said:CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
Why wouldn't you take a GOTY, improve and expand it for the sequel?
I'm fine with this, but pass the savings along to consumers. Charging $70 is kind of insulting for a game that has significantly lower development costs.
Join The Legend of #Zelda series producer, Eiji Aonuma, for roughly 10 minutes of gameplay from The Legend of Zelda: #TearsOfTheKingdom on 3/28 at 7:00 a.m. PT on our YouTube channel.
— Nintendo of America (@NintendoAmerica) March 27, 2023
▶️ https://t.co/uMUCfVjFQL pic.twitter.com/y49N4jRUTz
Mmmm apples and oranges. Majora's Mask was made in 1 year. They reused and enhanced the engine, most 3D models, etc. And of course introduced a few others (the transformations, Kafei, etc.)bluefire579 said:Just because a sequel uses the base of its predecessor as a jumping off point doesn't mean there's significantly lower development costs. When it comes out, Tears of the Kingdom will have been in development about as long as Breath of the Wild was.BenTheGoodAg said:Quad Dog said:CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
Why wouldn't you take a GOTY, improve and expand it for the sequel?
I'm fine with this, but pass the savings along to consumers. Charging $70 is kind of insulting for a game that has significantly lower development costs.
Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask is a great example of this. You can see the bones of OoT in MM, but there's so much more that went into it: completely new area, new weapons, new designs and animations for old weapons, new mechanics, new music, new cinematics, etc. It kind of looks the same on the surface, but it's an entirely new game.
Thanks, mug. Thought of you when playing Metroid Prime Remastered recently! Still in my top 10 (maybe even top 5).Artorias said:
Been in the game biz since '98.
You are trying to compare a game that was made 20+ years ago, with a game made today. There is simply no comparison. It takes much, much longer to make games today than it did back then. The art dev pipeline alone is orders of magnitude more work than it was. Unfortunately, we have not seen much advancement in content creation tools/pipeline, not enough to keep up with the ever increasing scope and complexity of games today. So everything takes much longer to build.
Additionally, TotK is way, way, way, WAY larger and more complex than Majora's Mask was. You really are trying to compare two things that are vastly different.
I got my start making maps for Doom2/Quake 1 back in the mid 90's. I could crank out a complete Doom2 map in 1-2 days. A Quake 1 map in a week. Making a modern game map using something like Unreal takes 2-3 months, if not more.
I think it is just a hard problem to solve. Automating creativity is a difficult and complex solution, one which I don't know we will ever truly attain. That being said, with the advancements in AI recently, the next 10 years or so might finally see some meaningful content generation tools advancements that increase the speed of development. Of course, as soon as we get better tools, developers are going to want to make even MORE and BIGGER games, so might still take just as longpowerbelly said:
Why do you think the tools are lagging behind? Not enough economic incentive for someone to innovate?
Can you talk about any projects you're working on currently?Artorias said:I think it is just a hard problem to solve. Automating creativity is a difficult and complex solution, one which I don't know we will ever truly attain. That being said, with the advancements in AI recently, the next 10 years or so might finally see some meaningful content generation tools advancements that increase the speed of development. Of course, as soon as we get better tools, developers are going to want to make even MORE and BIGGER games, so might still take just as longpowerbelly said:
Why do you think the tools are lagging behind? Not enough economic incentive for someone to innovate?
Epic has made some advancements in tools techonology with Unreal 5. Some of the new stuff they showed at GDC last week was really cool, like their facial animation tech where you can record yourself on a cell phone camera, and process that into a working facial animation rig that looks pretty damn nice in a matter of minutes.
Not at the moment. Maybe later this year.Aggies2009 said:Can you talk about any projects you're working on currently?Artorias said:I think it is just a hard problem to solve. Automating creativity is a difficult and complex solution, one which I don't know we will ever truly attain. That being said, with the advancements in AI recently, the next 10 years or so might finally see some meaningful content generation tools advancements that increase the speed of development. Of course, as soon as we get better tools, developers are going to want to make even MORE and BIGGER games, so might still take just as longpowerbelly said:
Why do you think the tools are lagging behind? Not enough economic incentive for someone to innovate?
Epic has made some advancements in tools techonology with Unreal 5. Some of the new stuff they showed at GDC last week was really cool, like their facial animation tech where you can record yourself on a cell phone camera, and process that into a working facial animation rig that looks pretty damn nice in a matter of minutes.
I was using it as an example of a game that a) was built from another, b) had a dev cycle that was about normal length for the time, and c) was sold at full price. In the raw work that goes into it, yeah, the newer Zelda games are going to be leaps and bounds above it, but for what is being produced in the time and place, the similarities exist.Aggies2009 said:Mmmm apples and oranges. Majora's Mask was made in 1 year. They reused and enhanced the engine, most 3D models, etc. And of course introduced a few others (the transformations, Kafei, etc.)bluefire579 said:Just because a sequel uses the base of its predecessor as a jumping off point doesn't mean there's significantly lower development costs. When it comes out, Tears of the Kingdom will have been in development about as long as Breath of the Wild was.BenTheGoodAg said:Quad Dog said:CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
Why wouldn't you take a GOTY, improve and expand it for the sequel?
I'm fine with this, but pass the savings along to consumers. Charging $70 is kind of insulting for a game that has significantly lower development costs.
Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask is a great example of this. You can see the bones of OoT in MM, but there's so much more that went into it: completely new area, new weapons, new designs and animations for old weapons, new mechanics, new music, new cinematics, etc. It kind of looks the same on the surface, but it's an entirely new game.
I know game development has become a bit more complex, but they made my favorite game of all time in 1 year by reusing assets and introducing some new mechanics. Now, re-using assets AND at least pieces of the world map with a few things introduced apparently takes 6 years and costs more.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm looking forward to playing TotK and I've already spent a voucher on the pre-order. I'm excited but would like to know why the stark difference in Majora's Mask vs TotK in terms of cost, development time, etc. Someone more familiar with the industry may be able to help?
Well, 1 year wasn't normal dev time for a game back then, right? It was really impressive how quickly they threw that game together all things considered. I realize that speaking of Majora's Mask is definitely the exception and not the rule. Such an amazing game. I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the price of the game. Hell, with Nintendo offering vouchers, it's possible to get the game for $50, which is what I did.bluefire579 said:I was using it as an example of a game that a) was built from another, b) had a dev cycle that was about normal length for the time, and c) was sold at full price. In the raw work that goes into it, yeah, the newer Zelda games are going to be leaps and bounds above it, but for what is being produced in the time and place, the similarities exist.Aggies2009 said:Mmmm apples and oranges. Majora's Mask was made in 1 year. They reused and enhanced the engine, most 3D models, etc. And of course introduced a few others (the transformations, Kafei, etc.)bluefire579 said:Just because a sequel uses the base of its predecessor as a jumping off point doesn't mean there's significantly lower development costs. When it comes out, Tears of the Kingdom will have been in development about as long as Breath of the Wild was.BenTheGoodAg said:Quad Dog said:CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
Why wouldn't you take a GOTY, improve and expand it for the sequel?
I'm fine with this, but pass the savings along to consumers. Charging $70 is kind of insulting for a game that has significantly lower development costs.
Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask is a great example of this. You can see the bones of OoT in MM, but there's so much more that went into it: completely new area, new weapons, new designs and animations for old weapons, new mechanics, new music, new cinematics, etc. It kind of looks the same on the surface, but it's an entirely new game.
I know game development has become a bit more complex, but they made my favorite game of all time in 1 year by reusing assets and introducing some new mechanics. Now, re-using assets AND at least pieces of the world map with a few things introduced apparently takes 6 years and costs more.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm looking forward to playing TotK and I've already spent a voucher on the pre-order. I'm excited but would like to know why the stark difference in Majora's Mask vs TotK in terms of cost, development time, etc. Someone more familiar with the industry may be able to help?
Artorias gave a pretty good explanation on the complexity differences. Art, design, engineering, it's all much more complex and as a result, more specialized. A great demonstration of this is looking at the difference in number and variety of roles between OoT and BotW (or any games from the 90s vs today). I'll also add that this kind of increased complexity greatly increases both the fragility of your systems and longer iteration and testing cycles.
It was shorter, but not by that much. Mario 64, for example, was built from the ground up in about a year and 8 months.Aggies2009 said:Well, 1 year wasn't normal dev time for a game back then, right? It was really impressive how quickly they threw that game together all things considered. I realize that speaking of Majora's Mask is definitely the exception and not the rule. Such an amazing game. I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the price of the game. Hell, with Nintendo offering vouchers, it's possible to get the game for $50, which is what I did.bluefire579 said:I was using it as an example of a game that a) was built from another, b) had a dev cycle that was about normal length for the time, and c) was sold at full price. In the raw work that goes into it, yeah, the newer Zelda games are going to be leaps and bounds above it, but for what is being produced in the time and place, the similarities exist.Aggies2009 said:Mmmm apples and oranges. Majora's Mask was made in 1 year. They reused and enhanced the engine, most 3D models, etc. And of course introduced a few others (the transformations, Kafei, etc.)bluefire579 said:Just because a sequel uses the base of its predecessor as a jumping off point doesn't mean there's significantly lower development costs. When it comes out, Tears of the Kingdom will have been in development about as long as Breath of the Wild was.BenTheGoodAg said:Quad Dog said:CDub06 said:
Is anyone else a little underwhelmed? So much of this looks identical to the first game. It looks like an expansion...
Why wouldn't you take a GOTY, improve and expand it for the sequel?
I'm fine with this, but pass the savings along to consumers. Charging $70 is kind of insulting for a game that has significantly lower development costs.
Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask is a great example of this. You can see the bones of OoT in MM, but there's so much more that went into it: completely new area, new weapons, new designs and animations for old weapons, new mechanics, new music, new cinematics, etc. It kind of looks the same on the surface, but it's an entirely new game.
I know game development has become a bit more complex, but they made my favorite game of all time in 1 year by reusing assets and introducing some new mechanics. Now, re-using assets AND at least pieces of the world map with a few things introduced apparently takes 6 years and costs more.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm looking forward to playing TotK and I've already spent a voucher on the pre-order. I'm excited but would like to know why the stark difference in Majora's Mask vs TotK in terms of cost, development time, etc. Someone more familiar with the industry may be able to help?
Artorias gave a pretty good explanation on the complexity differences. Art, design, engineering, it's all much more complex and as a result, more specialized. A great demonstration of this is looking at the difference in number and variety of roles between OoT and BotW (or any games from the 90s vs today). I'll also add that this kind of increased complexity greatly increases both the fragility of your systems and longer iteration and testing cycles.
Gotta admit, I am kinda with you after watching it. But I have learned not to bet against Miyamoto.powerbelly said:
I love the look of the game, but that preview made me less excited about the game.
powerbelly said:
Hopefully, the weapon-breaking mechanic will be improved. I am looking forward to it anyway.
Brian Earl Spilner said:powerbelly said:
Hopefully, the weapon-breaking mechanic will be improved. I am looking forward to it anyway.
But the new fuse mechanic kind of addresses that problem in a really cool way. Curious what made you less excited about it.
