Legend of Zelda - Links to the Quest?

[rambling]
This is not a little blurb about "realistic" Zelda vs. Celda, so please don\'t bring that up. LOL. Well, I\'ve been thinking. (Uh-oh.) In everything that follows, I will assume that Zelda GCN will be the 5th chapter in the ongoing Hyrule saga. Majora\'s Mask, Link\'s Awakening, and both of the Oracle games did not take place in Hyrule and/or did not involve the triforce, Ganon, and Zelda. The last game that did was Ocarina of Time, back in 1998. Also, all three of Nintendo\'s consoles had their first (or only, in the SNES\' case) Zelda be an official story title.

Now, these ramblings are a result of two possibilities of varying credibility. The first possibility is that Zelda GCN will not span multiple discs, as I hope, and will in fact be a very short game, as some journalists are quick to suggest. The other possiblity is that Celda will in fact be dropped for a more realistic look. I fully expect that should such a dramatic change be executed (especially considering that they have been working on Celda for quite a bit over a year already, that the game will be delayed, due to technical reasons. I mean, if they have to drop much of the work accomplished this past year+ then there is no way they can reasonably release the game when expected. Even if this did happen, and they did delay, they might still make serious compromises in length vs. early release. Either of the two options I listed above would probably result in the much shorter quest that any of us would truly want...

Which is what got me thinking. Even if you think that one of the above situations will not happen, what if the other does? Either way, you probably won\'t get the epic you are looking for. (I, personally, don\'t really think we will wind up with a "short" Zelda game, no matter what.) That got me to thinking how they could satisfy everyone. I mean, I really want to play the next Zelda this year, and while I would be more than willing to wait for a more perfect experience (I did wait over 6 years for Ocarina of Time) alleged internal changes in Nintendo\'s policies may result in drastically different games than we are used to from the big N.

So, let\'s say they made the "masses" happy by releasing a realistic Zelda fairly soon from now, or a Celda that\'s more \'loony tunes cartoon\' than \'full length movie,\' as it were, and we get a quest that is strangely short. We\'d all be happy, on some level, I\'m sure, but what about the hardcore fans that were happy to wait over 6 years for the admittedly innovative and majestic OoT? What about us!?

"What about expansion discs," I ask? I mean, what if they do plan to release a multi-disc Zelda epic, but in episodic installments, instead in one full-blown project with an expected dev time of over 5 years, like OoT had? Probable? Unlikely. Feasible? I think so. Let\'s say they release Zelda GCN, a 15 hour adventure, but only a "main module." What if, when you get to the end and face off against Ganondorf again, you beat him, something like the Phantom Ganondorf at the end of the Forest Temple in OoT. But, instead of the OoT combat, the game doesn\'t make it so obvious that you only fought a doppleganger? What if they began releasing episodes that "added" to the adventure. Let\'s say you only pay $35 for the main module, and each expansion sells for $15 or $20 more? Some of the expansion modules may be "required" to further the actual story, and some may be optional expansion discs that add new scenarios and new side-quests, the same way that many side-quests were totally optional in Majora\'s Mask (optional, but still overall rewarding?)

Some discs may require that you have already beaten the main module, some perhaps require that you have not yet completed the main scenario, and yet some other expansions could be accomplished at any time. What do you think of this concept? Would you potentially pay say... $75 dollars for the main module and 2 "story" expansions, or potentially over $100 for the complete experience (main quest + optional quests?) I think I would, particularly if they were spaced out over a period of a year. Like, one expansion disc every two months or so. Would you do it? And if so, would you buy only the required ones, or all expansions?
[/rambling]

[Bobs_Hardware]

dont like the idea  

this sort of option is feasible to lazy developers, its kind of like..releasing an incomplete game, and then making a patch for it.. its not as if the add-ons would be something extra as they are part of the game

plus Nintendo would never comprimise their developing integrity...thinking they would drastically cut a game short merely to release it on time is rediculous, Nintendo are famous for their delays for much much smaller problems than having to completely redesign the graphics engine

i for one wouldnt like to play a few hours...have to stop and wait 6 months, then play another few hours, then stop and wait 6 months.. this is practically a scaled down version of releasing a saga in parts... why make 6 episodes of star wars??  when you can make 50 of them and release them each 3 months apart??  because its not a good idea  

but it is a well thought out post though  

I can see where you\'re coming from, and it\'d certainly be a new idea in terms of console gaming, but even as much a zelda fanatic as I am, i would not be able to handle zelda or ANY game for that matter in parts separated as much apart as a year

With movies it\'s not so bad, but the interactivity is almost nil. You\'ll all know from first hand experience how even on tv, when you see "to be continued" you get angry

But with a game with interactivity at it\'s peak, there\'s no WAY i could handle seeing "to be continued in a year", when nintendo could easily avoid waits such as those by putting in a few more months of development

I don\'t see it happening

Hmmmm... I thought that might be the more popular response. I can only imagine how I would do it, and it\'s very hard for me to put that to words. Again, it is so not something that would happen. The biggest benefit I could see to this kind of endeavor is that the expansion discs wouldn\'t require a complete team to dev them rapidly, since the engine is complete and unlike Majora\'s Mask, the gameplay wouldn\'t see any truly dramatic changes.  That said, what I propose (and this is not a possibility, in my eyes, just a random idea) is that the time between the discs would be no more than 2 months, not half a year or whatever.  And... the core of the main story would be told in the main module, not be released in installments.

That would still free up the team to work on other projects, including the true sequel, or the GBA version, or... whatever. I honestly would not mind seeing more modular games on a console, as long as I\'m not expected to pay the total $50 on the core game, and then like $30 on each individual disc.

I mean, technically, when Diablo II was released, it was unleashed as a standalone, complete product, where the solo player and multiplayer were both fully functional. You could start a guy, take him to the end, and slay Diablo, end of story. The expansion included 2 new character classes, 6 new quests post-Diablo, and a slew of gameplay enhancements mostly as a result of player feedback. What I\'m saying is that Diablo II as it existed before the Lord of Destruction expansion was in fact, a complete game.

What I\'m suggesting is for Nintendo to release a slightly cheaper, and not fully realized Zelda game early, preferably built with an engine that makes everyone happy, and release expansion based modules, cheaply. Only one or two maximum that are "required" and maybe another two or three that are "optional" for the truly hardcore, puzzle-fiend, secret-loving Zelda fans.

Sounds iffy, I know, but I think if someone did it right, it could really change gaming for the better. We\'d see less development time in between games, and yet the games would still last longer, because even if you played the game hardcore and beat it within 2 weeks, you know that 2 months from then, you\'ll have more adventures waiting for you. And think of the replay. The 2nd time through the game, you may just want to play through the optional/bonus areas in an entirely different order. It almost seemed like Nintendo was going for that kinda feel with the Oracle series. I should have mentioned that a lot of what I\'m saying is based off what I see as a logical leap from that core technology.

Oh, and if you made it this far, thank you for your time and patience... and compliments, lol.

While I don\'t much like the idea of a shorter game with instalments, it could work. I\'ve got no love for Nintendo but I do have a healthy respect for their building such a loyal group of followers over the years, despite the routine delays and some major letdowns. If it could be successfully pulled off, Zelda would be the series that could do it. There was talk last year of doing something similar with the next version of Tomb(less) Raider, going online to download the latest levels. Ugh, sounds nowhere near as plausible. Also I recently read Tecmo has plans to release a low cost supplement for DOA3. So this speculation of doling out Zelda is more than reasonable.

There may be the factor being overlooked in the reality of not having enough consoles available yet to make the release of another Zelda, however long or short it ends up, worth their while within the next year or two. Until the GC market has been established worldwide with a stockpile of units ready to handle the inevitable increased demand of such a heavily anticipated release, it would be a huge waste of console moving muscle. That could realisticlaly buy the time to deliver a finished product, no matter which version they settle on (my moneys on a cross somewhere between the N64 Link and the longed for ultra real preview).

I think you\'re underestimating what Nintendo can do with 1.5GB. TOOT fit snuggly into 32MB. It was a 50-hour quest for me.. and the production values were very high for the time. It seemed that Nintendo had pulled all the stops.. all in a measly 32MB of data.

Nintendo will have 6:1 S3TC texture compression, plenty of lossless audio compression technology (developed by Factor 5) and even some geometry compression with the GameCube, most of which they didn\'t have on the N64. The discs can hold 1.5GB, and they\'re supposedly already dual layered.. and I think that it\'s plenty for a game like this. They can go with the in-game cutscenes again (which I prefer over FMV) and Zelda games aren\'t known for extensive voice-work.. so that\'s no issue.