Discussion Money wise, do you think it would make sense having a second 3d Zelda team?

[Lord Azrael]

They absolutely should because the time between Zelda installments is ridiculous. Though I'd rather a 2D and a 3D team

 

[correojon]

Zelda and Mario are the most AAA of Nintendo's IPs. That means they require a lot of resources, both in quality and in quantity. If you create a 2nd Zelda team you'll have to split some of this high-quality assets between both teams, which would result in both Zelda games being dragged down to a lower quality level. Best case scenario you will end up with one game being excellent (but below the bar BotW has set) and the other one being mild. For example, look at what happened to Dark Souls 2 when FROM Software tried to make it at the same time as they were making Bloodborne. Worst case scenario, you end up with 2 mild games.

Zelda is a prestige franchise and it's achieved and maintained that status by Nintendo putting everything they have into it every time. This is a formula that works amazingly well, I wouldn't change a comma.

 

[Bosintang]

It would make sense to have a team making games scratching more or less the same itch. It doesn't have to be Zelda, I think it actually shouldn't.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Zelda and Mario are the most AAA of Nintendo's IPs. That means they require a lot of resources, both in quality and in quantity. If you create a 2nd Zelda team you'll have to split some of this high-quality assets between both teams, which would result in both Zelda games being dragged down to a lower quality level. Best case scenario you will end up with one game being excellent (but below the bar BotW has set) and the other one being mild. For example, look at what happened to Dark Souls 2 when FROM Software tried to make it at the same time as they were making Bloodborne. Worst case scenario, you end up with 2 mild games.

Zelda is a prestige franchise and it's achieved and maintained that status by Nintendo putting everything they have into it every time. This is a formula that works amazingly well, I wouldn't change a comma.

Fromsoft absolutely do not wait until the previous game they've got is done before they start working on the next. They'd never manage the ~3 year turn around between releases, and we know that Elden ring started development in 2017, while they were still working on Seikiro. Seikiro itself started development when they finished the Bloodborne dlc in 2015, which was while they were still working on Dark souls 3.

 

[Yoshifan31]

In the past 5 years the "consensus GotY" (ugh) has been:

• 2018: a linear action adventure game with basically the same structure as OOT style Zelda, runner up was an open world
• 2019: an open world game focused on traversal
• 2020: a linear action game with dense level design
• 2021: a linear puzzle platformer
• 2022: an open world with a similar structure to BotW

I mean that was my point, good games are better than open world games. The whole problem with open world is how they have basically the same pacing. Let’s say you have a curve that represents a game’s “intensity” or density or agency, whichever. Your good, structured games will have a regular amount of spikes. Open world games would be a straight line with tiny bumps on it. If you had another curve to represent fun, open world games would have exponential decay. The whole issue is how their selling points are total freedom but at the end of the day the game itself is just wandering around, going through bite sized challenges, collecting uninteresting collectables like stat upgrades or crafting materials. There are so many ways that Zelda could have implemented non-linearity for their new game on an HD console for the first time, but instead we have to deal with their take on industry trends rather than expanding upon what Zelda has been doing. Working on more powerful hardware would be much less limiting for them in terms of structure for their games. Imagine a totally seamless Zelda game where the line between dungeon and field is blurred, basically interconnected areas that all have the complexity of a dungeon. Essentially the same structure as something like Dark Souls but in the context of Zelda it would kind of look like Skyward Sword but nonlinear and with more than three regions. Imagine a game with the schedule complexity of Majora’s Mask for the first time in 20 years, imagine a town that would give Clock Town a run for its money. The list goes on and on but these ideas might as well be dream games at this point due to the current pace and design decisions of Zelda releases. The new mechanics and physics puzzles in BOTW are definitely steps forwards for the series but when you can’t provide enough interesting contexts for these due to the games being these very sparse open worlds that are way too big… yeah

If your point was rather that current consensus GOTYs did a good enough job on scratching the older Zelda itch… I’m not sure about that. Admitedly I haven’t played a lot of these games (thought GOW was more of a linear action game) but like I’m pretty sure most action-adventure games on the market don’t really try to have the balance, gameplay variety and level design of a 3D Zelda. Like, people start shouting the term “Metroidvania” when a game gives you new abilities that you use to progress, for 3D games there’s like that Batman game (only the first one iirc?), that Star Wars game, Control, what else? The bulk of them usually stay away from “gamey and puzzly” elements like that and just settle on being “numbers go up” action rpgs that follow trends. Like, the only modern games in which areas get praised for level design in a similar way to Zelda dungeons would be Souls areas but those games are from a whole different genre. Actually let’s look at a concrete example, let’s look at what Ubisoft games that were inspired by Zelda have looked like. You got Beyond Good & Evil, a cult classic inspired by the N64 Zeldas. It’s honestly not half as good as any Zelda game, it has like 2-3 “dungeons” total. It’s still a very good and unique game, it’s inspired but doesn’t rip off, it has a unique setting, textbook example of a hidden gem, that’s the kind of game you like to see. It may fail to stand up to OOT and the like but at least it tries and at least it stands out from it. Now let’s look at Immortals Fenyx Rising. The inspirations are very obvious but at least the game is fun, unlike Assassin’s Creed. They mentioned inspiration from 3D platformers as well, it’s a gamey game, you do puzzles. It listened to gamer focus groups so it tries to one up BOTW in some ways, you can swim, there’s more interior areas, no breakable weapons, no rain. Even then, it has the exact same flaws than BOTW (with a few more of its own). It has no breakable weapons but exploration is still unrewarding, most of what you collect is just skins. By the time you complete two areas, collecting all of these small upgrading materials, you’ll have fully upgraded your character, turning the game into a cakewalk. That’s why chasing the open world train is so lame, people make so much more interesting games when they aren’t fixated on industry trends, especially when those are typically associated with worse game design

 

[Horror Kid]

Moneywise I think it could be worth it. More so for Mario I guess.
Odyssey was probably a lot cheaper than BotW but also sold very well.
But there are a lot of other restrictions to achieve that. And would these games offer the unique gameplay ideas we come to expect? There is a risk of diluting the franchise when releasing safe iterations of the formula too often.

Personally I wouldn't want it. TotK will be an event. Every mainline 3D Mario is an event. As is a new Mario Kart etc.
There are so many games out there that I want to play and I don't need filler games for these franchises.
I somewhat loose interest in series if the games in it come out too regularly. I know others will feel different, just my 2 cents.

 

[Dr_Phishshoe]

All i know is that traditional 3d zelda/2d zelda sell droplets worth, while openworld zelda does a whole bathtub

 

[meatbag]

good games are better than open world games

Nah, you just need to accept that open-world games aren't inherently bad. They simply offer a different gameplay experience and value proposition.

instead we have to deal with their take on industry trends rather than expanding upon what Zelda has been doing

Nintendo did both for Breath of the Wild. If you listened to their GDC talks, they were very clear that they took inspiration from both the older Zelda games and from other games. They weren't out to make "an open world game using the Zelda IP". They wanted to recapture the sense of adventure that defined the Zelda series, and their gameplay prototypes eventually developed into an open world.

Imagine a totally seamless Zelda game where the line between dungeon and field is blurred, basically interconnected areas that all have the complexity of a dungeon

This could still suck. Execution matters.

 

[TheMindOfThomas]

No. I think part of Zelda's appeal is how every new game feels like an "event". Having releases more often, especially spread across two studios, would dilute that magic I feel, and it could start to show in terms of sales numbers.

 

[MisterSpo]

I'm not sure Nintendo would do that when there's no sign yet that they've been able to maintain a 2D team and a 3D team for Zelda within EPD in the present generation, never mind two 3D teams for the franchise.

I think it's far more likely we see the 2D team either reform with some new leads, or get some more resources if they already have an idea, in the near future. Link's Awakening sold over 6 million copies as of the end of 2021, and it's easier to differentiate the isometric style than it is two 3D styles of Zelda. We know Aonuma wanted the 2D style to continue if the team could think of a new idea, and while that comment was way back in 2017, a sympathetic senior producer is often key to making things happen at Nintendo. Maybe they'll rope in development support from somewhere, but I think the 2D series has a real shot at returning early in the lifecycle of Nintendo's new system.

As far as linear 3D Zelda goes, Nintendo have several options; not least the two 3D titles that are yet to release on Switch, and potential remakes or remasters of the N64 titles in the future. Ocarina of Time HD would be a solid hit for them, and wouldn't require quite as much development time and investment as a brand new 3D Zelda.

Now, in an abstract sense, Nintendo absolutely have the money to form a new team for linear 3D Zelda. They have billions available, and massive amounts are flowing into EPD as new facilities get built and hiring expands. It's not as if EPD alone or Zelda alone benefit from that investment; we've seen Monolith Soft step up for open world Zelda and we've seen that studio triple in size. We also know Nintendo have the money and resources and prestige (especially with Zelda) to contact pretty much any studio in the world to take on a Nintendo IP, so that's an option too. We're seeing Nintendo throw considerable effort into development arrangements for resource intensive series like Metroid, which isn't guaranteed to land in the 5 to 10 million range and never has historically.

But, I wouldn't say I see that happening for Zelda. The focus is going to remain on the open world titles, because they sell huge amounts and generate massive critical acclaim; they're also likely some of the most resource intensive games Nintendo make. In terms of offering distinct experiences with Zelda, I think 2D Zelda and Warriors have higher chances of continuing than the 3D linear titles. They're both more distinct from the open world titles in an easily communicable way; the Warriors series doesn't require development resources at Nintendo; the 3D linear series has 4 previous games that could be remastered for Switch or new hardware; and we have it direct from Aonuma that they wanted to find a way to keep going with the 2D series. Even if it hasn't happened yet, I wouldn't discount it, and I think with Tears done, that's probably likelier than it's been for a while.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

I don’t think it’s a question of money. They could make OoT-style games until the end of time and they would probably continue selling enough to justify their investment. Even a rather barebones remaster of Skyward Sword sold nearly 4m units. A completely new (and good) entry would most likely sell more, closer to Twilight Princess, I wager. It wouldn’t necessarily be developed at EPD but those numbers are good enough to throw a team and budget at it. I don't see a scenario where a more budget-conscious game isn't profitable enough. In fact, that's partially what I expected them to do between BotW and the next big mainline entry: A smaller, more experimental "side-quel" akin to Majora's Mask.

Based on the current trajectory it just looks like their ambitions lie elsewhere. TotK seems to continue down the path the series was set on with Skyward Sword, where they try to blur the lines between those discrete chunks of gameplay and locations. They’re more likely to bring back more OoT-isms rather than make separate entries. Especially when they could use those resources to strengthen their other properties.

I'm gonna sound like a broken record at this point but I think they should take the OoT formula and divorce it completely from Zelda. Drop all the decades old baggage while keeping the structure. A new (or legacy) series with its own world, characters and tropes could make it feel sufficiently different from mainline open-air Zelda while delivering a similar experience.

 

[neil]

The problem I reckon is you can't have a super-hype release like TOTK if you don't have a long wait between releases, more games might cannibalise sales from each other.

Personally I'd rather have a super deluxe AAA Ocarina of Time remake and then just let the one Zelda team get on with making brilliant new games

 

[JorgenRaft]

Money wise? Idk.

My own happiness wise? Yes it makes a lot of sense and they should do it.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

Zelda will continue to evolve. Breath of the Wild is not its final form. The next game will almost certainly be smaller than Tears of the Kingdom.

I think having two different series of 3D Zelda games that have different gameplay will be confusing.

 

[correojon]

Fromsoft absolutely do not wait until the previous game they've got is done before they start working on the next. They'd never manage the ~3 year turn around between releases, and we know that Elden ring started development in 2017, while they were still working on Seikiro. Seikiro itself started development when they finished the Bloodborne dlc in 2015, which was while they were still working on Dark souls 3.

True, but Demons Souls-Dark Souls1to3-BloodBorne-Sekiro-Elden Ring are all based on the same engine and share a lot of assets; They're different tweaks of the same formula (save Sekiro maybe) which allows From to build the next game "on top" of the previous one. They even reuse animations, menus and a lot of enemy designs and game systems. And please don't take this as me trying to take an ounce of merit away from From's achievements: I love Souls games and both DS1 and Sekiro are high on my list of GOATs.
Now compare WW, TP or SS between them, and then compare them with BotW. The amount of work you can share between them is much more limited. I'd say it's straight impossible to build BotW on top of the WW, TP or SS engines. I know, it's feasible, but it would be a waste to do as you'll need a ton of extra work with no benefits compared to using a barebones 3D engine. BTW, I don't think the Zelda IP would still be so strong today if the 3D games had just followed the OoT template much closely than they've already done and if the 2D games had done the same with the ALttP formula.

 

[Shinespark]

The fact that the Skyward Sword remake has sold 4m is a strong argument in favor of catering to the old school 3D Zelda audience. The fact that BOTW has outsold every 3D Zelda combined is a stronger argument against splitting the current Zelda team and diverting resources to anything else.

That's my primary concern, I don't think Aonuma or other key team members + support staff should be working on anything other than moving Zelda forward. It's open world now, but it could become something else in the next gen.

If there's going to be a second Zelda team, it should be all new ppl tasked with making something completely different. That might be a modern reinvention of the OoT formula, it might look like the Link's Awakening remake, or maybe an entirely different direction. I'd be curious to see what they can do.

 

[Beanstar40]

I would personally really like that. I still yearn for a new traditional 3d zelda title in the vein of twilight princess or wind waker. I think the contained nature of those games really helped to make the game feel more alive, and gave each area its own personality. I think hyrule in botw is pretty sterile all things considered, to me, outside of a few locales, it feels like a big chunk of fields and mountains, without much personality. It also doesnt help that the post calamity nature of it made it feel pretty dead most of the time. Id have loved to come across more farms and small settlements. Imagine a location as memorable as lon lon ranch in the middle of botw’s hyrule.

 

[Johna X]

A.Interesting people say the gap helps hype, I saw people say TOTK's wait ruined hype. Ddd the last trailer really turn it around that much?

B.On the topic of rereleases, admittedly Mario 64 has never really gotten anything on this level to be fair, but I do kinda have some sinking feeling due to it's particular prestige that an OOT HD remake someday will happen, like it got a 3ds remake and I just feel for some reason based on the series' comparative history they'd feel more inclined to make an HD OOT then SM64. And yes remake not like HD filter. But again maybe I am wrong just a weird gut feeling.

 

[RennanNT]

The posts about 2D vs 3D got me thinking of an evolution of what they did in Phantom Hourglass.

The game was top down for the most part, but changes to behind link at occasions like cutscenes, traveling on boat and even in a couple boss fights.

Perspective changes have been present in lots of entries as well, ranging from the first game all the way to SS and ALBW, so that's something they like to do and are quite good at it, IMO.

I wonder what they could achieve alternating between top down and 3rd person, both in terms of being more efficient in budget/dev-time but also in terms of how creatively they can use that.

 

[Djehuty]

Probably, would be more efficient to have more people working on the next proper Zelda game.

The times have changed, I would just suggest enjoy what you have and accept never getting more of it, goes for a lot of Nintendo franchises.

 

[Xaltmas]

No. Any potential investment in that I’d rather see go towards a team/studio doing either new IP or dormant ones.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I feel like this might make for a distinction that's harder to market than a 2D/3D split. Call of Duty had multiple teams, but they were still producing the same kind of war FPS in different eras with different defined sub-brands for different time periods or whatever. Since BOTW, every Zelda release has clearly been a spinoff or remake. But it's sure to cause confusion if every other major new Zelda was an intentionally more limited release. If you have GTA III, V, and VII be open world games while IV and VI are something more linear, you've really got yourself two series and making fans of either series unsure about which are the ones they actually want.

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

Probably, would be more efficient to have more people working on the next proper Zelda game.

The times have changed, I would just suggest enjoy what you have and accept never getting more of it, goes for a lot of Nintendo franchises.

Pretty much. Games take longer to make & are more resource intensive then ever. In this case it is not a money issue but a time/manpower one. Just look at Pokémon, CoD, or Assassin’s Creed for the amount of Human Resources needed to get these games out in a timely manner.

 

[Cara]

I feel that business wise it would make more sense to create a new IP or adapt one lesser known franchise to the classic Zelda format, but i don't see why making more Zelda games would be a bad choice, there can be better choices but they won't lose money on it.

 

[Djehuty]

I feel like this might make for a distinction that's harder to market than a 2D/3D split. Call of Duty had multiple teams, but they were still producing the same kind of war FPS in different eras with different defined sub-brands for different time periods or whatever. Since BOTW, every Zelda release has clearly been a spinoff or remake. But it's sure to cause confusion if every other major new Zelda was an intentionally more limited release. If you have GTA III, V, and VII be open world games while IV and VI are something more linear, you've really got yourself two series and making fans of either series unsure about which are the ones they actually want.

It’s also pretty clear everything that wasn’t a port has been botw branded

Even the links awakening remake just up and uses the breath of the wild font.

 

[Sander RX]

I'm gonna sound like a broken record at this point but I think they should take the OoT formula and divorce it completely from Zelda. Drop all the decades old baggage while keeping the structure. A new (or legacy) series with its own world, characters and tropes could make it feel sufficiently different from mainline open-air Zelda while delivering a similar experience.

If you had to choose

Startropics or Murasame Castle?

 

[juuso]

I don't think they are in a hurry to develop new 3D Zeldas that are not part of the mainline series, at least. Whatever the sequel to TotK ends up being, they still have the Wind Waker and Twilight Princess HD remakes left for release, and can remake a 2D game or two (I mean it probably will be the Oracle games) in the same way as Link's Awakening.

 

[grobla123]

Imagine getting 3d Zeldas out every 3.5-4 years consistently (I envy from soft fans). I salivate at the thought. But nintendos strategy has been to maintain relatively smallish teams, with less expansion than some of the western juggernaut devs. I can't see it happen, nintendo likes making just enough heavy hitting games they need to sell their profit making console. They even sit on finished games if need be. They might stand to make more software sales but they don't seem to think it's worth it. Even if they were to expand and want more software sales, they may prefer new easy to sell and lower budget Mario titles.

 

[karmitt]

I think they should have two Zelda teams just so we don’t have to wait 5-6 years for the next open-air Zelda title. Would be nice to see these titles perhaps every 3 years?

I appreciate that your post isn’t about multiple open-air titles, but I personally couldn’t care less if the OoT (focused) style returns. Breath of the Wild was a prototype - anything I could possibly want out of the franchise could come as an evolution of that template.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

If you had to choose

Startropics or Murasame Castle?

If I had to, I'd probably go with StarTropics because that seems closer to the Zelda lineage in the way it mixes adventure and action elements. A new Murasame Castle I envision more like a character action game.

That said, I don't think StarTropics is even on Nintendo's radar and if they brought it back it would change considerably. I mainly would hope for more respectful depictions of the cultures living on the tropical islands and a more contemporary take on the "adventurer archeologist" trope.

What do you think?

 

[Instro]

Up until the BotW, Zelda was an S tier franchise for them, but only had A tier sales. Now that the mainline games are selling as well as their peak franchises like Mario and Pokemon, I'd imagine there will be a push the expand the content offering of the franchise beyond what they've previously done. That takes time of course. I would not at all be surprised if the team at Monolith is permanently attached to the series in some way going forward.

Imagine getting 3d Zeldas out every 3.5-4 years consistently (I envy from soft fans). I salivate at the thought. But nintendos strategy has been to maintain relatively smallish teams, with less expansion than some of the western juggernaut devs. I can't see it happen, nintendo likes making just enough heavy hitting games they need to sell their profit making console. They even sit on finished games if need be. They might stand to make more software sales but they don't seem to think it's worth it. Even if they were to expand and want more software sales, they may prefer new easy to sell and lower budget Mario titles.

Nintendo has been, and is currently, going through pretty sweeping recruitment and hiring efforts over the last few years though. They are growing much more rapidly now than they were ~10 years ago.

 

[Sander RX]

If I had to, I'd probably go with StarTropics because that seems closer to the Zelda lineage in the way it mixes adventure and action elements. A new Murasame Castle I envision more like a character action game.

That said, I don't think StarTropics is even on Nintendo's radar and if they brought it back it would change considerably. I mainly would hope for more respectful depictions of the cultures living on the tropical islands and a more contemporary take on the "adventurer archeologist" trope.

What do you think?

I dunno, really.

If using one of these dead franchises for this purpose ever comes to pass, I think Murasame Castle seems like something that Nintendo remember existing just a tad more than StarTropics.

Perhaps my perspective is skewed by the superficial resemblance of Murasame to Zelda 1. I am not really familiar with the game’s actual structure. If it was more of an action game, then yeah StarTropics makes a bit more sense.

 

[KarmaDesires]

Ok Yamauchi ("Japanese gamers like to be alone in their rooms and play depressing games")

Also if this is the case why did Mario sell so much better and then now on switch actually sold a tad worse then Zelda

Because while being extremly polished good games 3D Mario games exhibit diminishing returns in terms of freedom and challenge compared to 2D Mario (the world building is also less consistent). I’d argue 2D Mario offers more freedom i.e in how they handle power-ups, they’re not contextual and you can beat the whole game with the one you prefer.

It’s one thing to sell well but it’s another thing to cause continuous engagement from fans, when you look at at the games that manage both things the common denominator among them seems to be offering each player a different experience..the Zelda team picked up on that and designed BOTW.

 

[Hero of Hyrule]

I can understand the impulse, but because of the way development at Nintendo EPD works, which is less rigidly divided along traditional "teams" or "studios", I simply don't think it will go that way. Rather what is likelier to happen is that members from the "second team" are pulled into helping with whatever the "main team" is working on as needed, more and more until there is little delineation left and it's just a distinction without a difference.

Like, I get it, but from what I understand, Nintendo EPD simply does not seem to be set up to work that way.

 

[Adulfzen]

I'd be expecting more investments done towards remakes, spin offs (with third party studios) and maybe 2D top down games rather than brand new traditional 3D Zelda games that'd still be a considerable investment to match HD games as production values would inherently increase.

I do agree with the sentiment they should find more ways to fill the time with the massive development time increase between their mainline open world games (as it'll obviously be the way forward at this point) but I just don't think making "linear" 3D games that are also mainlines is necessarily the answer.

 

[Rampo360]

6 years is fucking long, if they could had another team doing Zelda titles, with a different more classic, it could work well in theory yes.

 

[ika]

They absolutely need a second 3D Zelda team but not to make a different kind of games/mechanics but to reduce the wait between releases (not counting remakes, remasters, ports, spin-offs).

A 5-6 years wait to get a totally new Zelda game is not cool (and more so when they’re making direct sequels than reuses great chunks of content). Specially for those of us that are fans since the NES/SNES era since some are now in the mid-40s or later and the clock never stops lol

 

[Lozjam]

See, that really doesn't work financially

So, we know for a fact that Nintendo used around 300 developers for BotW for their core team. Of course, with contractors and Yada Yada Yada. Well those 300 developers took 6 years to sell BotW for 30,000,000 plus copies.

We aren't going to count manufacturing costs or whatever, since they are kind of the same across the board. Those 300 developers made over 1.8 billion dollars of revenue(not profit) in this one game. That is approximately 300 million dollars for each year that they developed the game.

Now, the ceiling for a "traditional" Zelda game, is about 10 million. The only game to reach that number, is Twilight Princess, which released almost 20 years ago. Otherwise, your traditional Zelda experiences have sold an average of about 5 million copies.

Let's say that they 4 years for a traditional Zelda game, with around 50 core developers(which is how long both Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword took). The net revenue for those games on average is $300,000,000 and $600,000,000 at best. That is really only 75, 000,000 per year developing on average, and 150,000,000 at best.

That is a huge gulf between the profits of those games. And even if it takes a lot less resources, you could have those developers working on a much bigger title like your Zelda, Mariokart, or Animal Crossing.

Nintendo is a resource strapped company at the moment. They have plenty of money, powerful IPs, successful hardware. But they are severely strapped for space and manpower at the moment. That's why they are constructing brand new buildings right now.

Now what Nintendo can do, is appoint third party developers to do these sorts of games though. And Nintendo has worked with 3 very recently, being Grezzo(Links Awakening Remake, Ocarina of Time/Majoras Mask 3D), Koei Techmo(Hyrule Warriors, Age of Calamity) and Tantalus(TPHD, SSHD). Now that is essentially free money right there, since Nintendo does not need to spare much of their developers to create projects like those. And I am pretty sure those two companies are working on something. It would make sense through partnerships to basically make those developers the ocarina of time team.

 

[Djehuty]

Imagine getting 3d Zeldas out every 3.5-4 years consistently (I envy from soft fans). I salivate at the thought. But nintendos strategy has been to maintain relatively smallish teams, with less expansion than some of the western juggernaut devs. I can't see it happen, nintendo likes making just enough heavy hitting games they need to sell their profit making console. They even sit on finished games if need be. They might stand to make more software sales but they don't seem to think it's worth it. Even if they were to expand and want more software sales, they may prefer new easy to sell and lower budget Mario titles.

they've been expanding massively since the switch launch and even have a new building being made for 2027.

they have currently mroe than doubled in size since the swithc era, not countning any of their subsidiaries which have also grown, as well as their partners that pretty much only do stuff for nintendo.

 

[Sunshinemario]

no.
It’s not logical to do that.

For better or worse, the new style of 3D Zelda is here to stay, and will probably be the standard going forth.

Now you all can taste a sliver of how I feel about the modern Paper Mario games, lol.

Also, people need to actually play Tears of the Kingdom before going all out on why modern 3D Zelda isn’t good. I trust that the Zelda team did a better job with the story and dungeons this time, and even if they didn’t, i’m still waiting to actually play the game to say that for sure or not.

 

[fourfourfun]

They should have a 2DHD team and a 3D team.

 

[Dizzle]

The mythical man month.