Discussion Will we see EPD create new action-adventure IPs at switch2?

[Shakaan]

I doubt it.
Zelda is already filling that role.

 

[StretchNStripes]

Maybe not so much "action-adventure" in the truest sense, but I would love to see EPD's take on a horror game/game with horror elements developed internally. I'd argue the closest we've ever gotten was Luigi's Mansion on Gamecube. Since its kind of a niche genre, maybe they won't spring for it anytime soon though.

 

[freedomseekr]

I mean... "action-adventure" is such a wide-spanning term that it's hard to pin-point what that would look like.

Zelda and Metroid are both games that fall under that umbrella (yes, "Metroidvania" is an AA subgenre... stop being weird about it), but once you venture outside Nintendo's catalogue, pretty much every other game, and especially most big "AAA" games are in that veneer and most are... well, kinda different from each other.

I wouldn't mind anything in that direction but it would have to be something that is clearly distinct from Zelda (both "modern" and "classic") and Metroid (both 2D and Prime)... but also not fall into the vein of the "AAA action-adventure".

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

I mean... "action-adventure" is such a wide-spanning term that it's hard to pin-point what that would look like.

Zelda and Metroid are both games that fall under that umbrella (yes, "Metroidvania" is an AA subgenre... stop being weird about it), but once you venture outside Nintendo's catalogue, pretty much every other game, and especially most big "AAA" games are in that veneer and most are... well, kinda different from each other.

I wouldn't mind anything in that direction but it would have to be something that is clearly distinct from Zelda (both "modern" and "classic") and Metroid (both 2D and Prime)... but also not fall into the vein of the "AAA action-adventure".

Your point is exactly right, I certainly don't want that boring as hell AAA action adventure.

 

[Secu]

Twenty million are mostly new generation players, are there four million old Zelda players at best? Let's just look at skyward sword sales. And it's well known that there are both older players who really like BOTW and TOTK, and a significant number of older players who really dislike them.

Why do you naturally classify Skyward's 400W players as players who dislike BOTW and TOTK.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

Why do you naturally classify Skyward's 400W players as players who dislike BOTW and TOTK.

Can't you see the second half of my sentence?

Your jackassery is pointless, the series of old player outcries against "BOTW ruined Zelda" has been around since 2017, you choose to ignore it that's your problem.

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

It’s gonna come down to if they can spare the resources to make such a game. Games like BoxBoy/Pushmo suffer for this; while also suffering from being a strategic shift away from this bracket.

 

[PixelKnight]

Nah, Tunic I gave up on after playing the beginning because there were so many operational level issues that prevented me from playing it.

Ah ok. What about some of the other indie Zelda-likes? Oceanhorn 2, Oceanheart and Blossom Tales 1/2 all hit the spot for me for 2D Zelda. That’s what I like about the indie scene these days. So much stuff that’s either a really specific niche I want games in but they don’t get made any more (particularly really tight 2D games), or small studios making stuff that is fresh due to not being designed by committee to appeal to tens of millions of players.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

Ah ok. What about some of the other indie Zelda-likes? Oceanhorn 2, Oceanheart and Blossom Tales 1/2 all hit the spot for me for 2D Zelda. That’s what I like about the indie scene these days. So much stuff that’s either a really specific niche I want games in but they don’t get made any more (particularly really tight 2D games), or small studios making stuff that is fresh due to not being designed by committee to appeal to tens of millions of players.

I played supraland, an indie game that combines the old Zelda Metroid and Portal in a design that speaks to my heart.

 

[PixelKnight]

I played supraland, an indie game that combines the old Zelda Metroid and Portal in a design that speaks to my heart.

I find stuff like Wonder Boy in Monster Land or Aggelos or Astalon also hits the spot for me for 2D adventuring. Rebel Transmute I’ve been meaning to play for the Metroid hit.

 

[Lord Azrael]

Can't you see the second half of my sentence?

Your jackassery is pointless, the series of old player outcries against "BOTW ruined Zelda" has been around since 2017, you choose to ignore it that's your problem.

You say that there's a "significant" number of pre-BotW fans that hate BotW/TotK but you offer zero evidence. There's a vocal subset of people that dislike the new direction sure, but BotW and TotK are beloved on the whole, even by old fans. Meanwhile Skyward Sword is one of the least liked 3D games in the entire franchise

I also don't see how Secu was being a "jackass", ironically you calling them that was the rudest part of the entire conversation

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

You say that there's a "significant" number of pre-BotW fans that hate BotW/TotK but you offer zero evidence. There's a vocal subset of people that dislike the new direction sure, but BotW and TotK are beloved on the whole, even by old fans. Meanwhile Skyward Sword is one of the least liked 3D games in the entire franchise

I also don't see how Secu was being a "jackass", ironically you calling them that was the rudest part of the entire conversation

Because he's taking what I said out of context, I clearly stated in my original post that there are older fans who loathe BOTW as well as older fans who love BOTW, but he's taking it out of context and interpreting it to mean that I think that all 4 million older fans hate BOTW, so why am I even having a serious conversation with him?

I'm not a native English speaker and I can't really think of a good word to describe it, so I apologize if this is a strong insulting word, it's my fault.

 

[Lord Azrael]

Because he's taking what I said out of context, I clearly stated in my original post that there are older fans who loathe BOTW as well as older fans who love BOTW, but he's taking it out of context and interpreting it to mean that I think that all 4 million older fans hate BOTW, so why am I even having a serious conversation with him?

Because it seems like you are trying to paint a much larger subset of old fans as BotW "haters" than actually are. You said:

If you don't think old players have a low tolerance for accepting new structures, you can immediately go look at how many old Legend of Zelda players were turned off by BOTW and TOTK

You very blatantly talk about "old players" in broad strokes here, treating them as some sort of monolith.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Can't you see the second half of my sentence?

Your jackassery is pointless, the series of old player outcries against "BOTW ruined Zelda" has been around since 2017, you choose to ignore it that's your problem.

Well, that's one way to kill any direction the thread had gone.

You're just making things up, the "out player outcry" is from a tiny practically imperceptible minority.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

Because it seems like you are trying to paint a much larger subset of old fans as BotW "haters" than actually are. You said:

You very blatantly talk about "old players" in broad strokes here, treating them as some sort of monolith.

I think I've given some leeway to what I've said, and I have to be honest and say that I haven't bothered to count how many older players hate BOTW, but just yesterday I could see older fans on the FAMI forums who were upset about the BOTW and TOTK shifts, and this isn't the first time I've encountered it, so I'm going to say that there are indeed older players who are disgusted with the shifts.

 

[Lord Azrael]

I think I've given some leeway to what I've said, and I have to be honest and say that I haven't bothered to count how many older players hate BOTW, but just yesterday I could see older fans on the FAMI forums who were upset about the BOTW and TOTK shifts, and this isn't the first time I've encountered it, so I'm going to say that there are indeed older players who are disgusted with the shifts.

No one's denying the fact that there are fans of the older games that dislike the direction of the new ones. Obviously there are. But we disagree that the number is as high as you seem to think it is, given BotW and TotK's incredible critical reception, and the fact that you're using anecdotal evidence doesn't help your argument. For every post on Fami that's upset about BotW or TotK, there's ten that sing their praises. It feels like you have a grudge against the newer games and are simply seeking validation.

 

[PixelKnight]

Yeah. I mean, I’m in my mid 40s. I was playing Zelda on the NES. What that perspective gives me is less ‘I don’t like the new ones’ and more ‘the major constant in Zelda is the sense of adventure’, the themes and scale and major elements have changed before and will again. Same for Final Fantasy, Mario and various other games that have been around for nearly 40 years. Gaming is a medium where these mega franchises seem to go on forever, they need to change to survive and give new jumping on points, the old games haven’t gone anywhere. It’s the same for superhero comics, or Star Wars, or Transformers, or any other pop culture that’s had entire new generations of creatives exploring new ideas with the technology and staff the time.

 

[Secu]

There are other people there who claim that Wiiu is better than Switch. I can also claim that there are a large number of players who dislike traditional Zelda, and I also have numbers.

Can't you see the second half of my sentence?

Your jackassery is pointless, the series of old player outcries against "BOTW ruined Zelda" has been around since 2017, you choose to ignore it that's your problem.

It's the decrease in sales from OOT to Skyward or the absolute value of those sales. Does the similarity in sales between Skyward HD and Zelda Warriors indicate that the appeal of traditional Zelda is close to zero. （Just to illustrate how to set topics）

BOTW is an example of doing something new and achieving success, that is, it does not affect the production of new content on traditional IPs.
The recent increase in FF16 sales compared to FF7RB also indicates this.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

Well, that's one way to kill any direction the thread had gone.

You're just making things up, the "out player outcry" is from a tiny practically imperceptible minority.

When you say this, don't forget that old Zelda players are a "minority", BOTW has 30 million players, TOTK has 20 million, Skyward Sword has less than 4 million, and the highest TP in the series has less than 9 million, so excluding old Zelda players who like BOTW, the rest of them are a minority, but sadly these people do speak on various forums. I don't want to say that this is survivor bias, I just want to say that this phenomenon exists even if it's insignificant. And the point of our discussion is why develop new IPs instead of innovating old ones, because you can't presuppose that old IPs can ever be as successful as BOTW again when it comes to innovating, and without the 20 million players from the BOTW expansion, the discussion about whether Zelda should be converted to an open-world or not would have to be louder than it is now.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

No one's denying the fact that there are fans of the older games that dislike the direction of the new ones. Obviously there are. But we disagree that the number is as high as you seem to think it is, given BotW and TotK's incredible critical reception, and the fact that you're using anecdotal evidence doesn't help your argument. For every post on Fami that's upset about BotW or TotK, there's ten that sing their praises. It feels like you have a grudge against the newer games and are simply seeking validation.

I've expressed in multiple threads that I'm one of the people most opposed to going back to the old Zelda, and that I really like the current "free adventure" experience, and that I'm really only critical of TOTK because there's something about it that I don't like, and that I don't in any way think that the past Legend of Zelda is better than the current, and that I even think that the current is the direction the Legend of Zelda series should be heading in.

 

[Armoured_Bear]

I wish they'd do a single player game consisting of excellent level and gameplay design, and while I know there's such a thing as a Ring fit, I'd like to have something more traditional in operation but more imaginative in this category, and it's really been a long time since Nintendo has put out anything like that other than Mario.

I would love a new single player IP too, it's been too long.

 

[rinku]

I'd love to see Monolith take a crack at a proper action game, forgoing the RPG aspects entirely.

Though, it may be too similar to Zelda in scope and style for them to get the green light for such a project. If there's one thing I feel Nintendo do unlike other devs is have one IP to serve a whole genre. I.e their only action/adventure franchise is Zelda. It's like once they have one game that fills a niche they don't feel the need to develop another IP to fill that niche too, they'd just rather make a sequel.

Compare that to a Sony, that will create a Ghost of Tsushima, a Horizon and a God of War that all serve a pretty similar audience.

Edit: I do think that it's great that Nintendo publishes a wide variety of games though, Astral Chain is still probably top 3 character action games for me purely for its concept.

 

[PixelKnight]

I'd love to see Monolith take a crack at a proper action game, forgoing the RPG aspects entirely.

Though, it may be too similar to Zelda in scope and style for them to get the green light for such a project. If there's one thing I feel Nintendo do unlike other devs is have one IP to serve a whole genre. I.e their only action/adventure franchise is Zelda. It's like once they have one game that fills a niche they don't feel the need to develop another IP to fill that niche too, they'd just rather make a sequel.

Compare that to a Sony, that will create a Ghost of Tsushima, a Horizon and a God of War that all serve a pretty similar audience.

Edit: I do think that it's great that Nintendo publishes a wide variety of games though, Astral Chain is still probably top 3 character action games for me purely for its concept.

Honestly I’d love to see the mechs from Xenoblade X and its world as an action game. Just exploring alien worlds, cartography mixed with mech combat. The latter is often over ruined cityscapes but there’s something really cool about the juxtaposition of cool mecha and a bright, vivid alien world and creatures.

Astral Chain is one where I loved the concept of the chain itself, and the cartoon futuristic art direction, but the combat itself and the empty Astral plane didn’t do much for me. I think it’s partially that I’m a bit tired of games setting out ‘this is an alien/alternate dimension where the rules of reality are different and it’s full of monsters!’ buuut it just turns out to be platforms floating in space or a dull corridor maze, but also the ‘controlling 2 characters simultaneously and try to clothesline the enemy’ just didn’t click for me. I applaud the work that went into it and the original concept of the combat though.

 

[Secu]

Your obsession with the term new IP far exceeds its own level.

I have seen this situation many times, and I have to say that some people are obsessed with the narrative or other aspects of the gaming industry rather than the game itself.

This forum has a meme where people eagerly wait for ND instead of playing games.

But what I want to say is that the term "new IP" is not such a remarkable thing or something great. It often just changes the title.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

There are other people there who claim that Wiiu is better than Switch. I can also claim that there are a large number of players who dislike traditional Zelda, and I also have numbers.



It's the decrease in sales from OOT to Skyward or the absolute value of those sales. Does the similarity in sales between Skyward HD and Zelda Warriors indicate that the appeal of traditional Zelda is close to zero. （Just to illustrate how to set topics）

BOTW is an example of doing something new and achieving success, that is, it does not affect the production of new content on traditional IPs.
The recent increase in FF16 sales compared to FF7RB also indicates this.

When you say this, don't forget that old Zelda players are a "minority", BOTW has 30 million players, TOTK has 20 million, Skyward Sword has less than 4 million, and the highest TP in the series has less than 9 million, so excluding old Zelda players who like BOTW, the rest of them are a minority, but sadly these people do speak on various forums. I don't want to say that this is survivor bias, I just want to say that this phenomenon exists even if it's insignificant. And the point of our discussion is why develop new IPs instead of innovating old ones, because you can't presuppose that old IPs can ever be as successful as BOTW again when it comes to innovating, and without the 20 million players from the BOTW expansion, the discussion about whether Zelda should be converted to an open-world or not would have to be louder than it is now.

My response here suggests that you seriously think about it, you absolutely cannot expect drastic innovation in old IPs to be as successful far beyond expectations as BOTW was, there are risks in developing new IPs but there are equally risks in Nintendo's insistence on making innovations in old IPs, it's a trade-off, what I'm thinking about as a gamer is that I want something completely different, something that is undoubtedly not possible with old IPs.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

Your obsession with the term new IP far exceeds its own level.

I have seen this situation many times, and I have to say that some people are obsessed with the narrative or other aspects of the gaming industry rather than the game itself.

This forum has a meme where people eagerly wait for ND instead of playing games.

But what I want to say is that the term "new IP" is not such a remarkable thing or something great. It often just changes the title.

When we say "new IP" it doesn't mean it's going to be successful and form a series, what I want is for them to completely get rid of the foundation laid by Zelda Metroid and Mario and come up with a completely new gameplay, like how they created splatoon, I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

 

[Secu]

My response here suggests that you seriously think about it, you absolutely cannot expect drastic innovation in old IPs to be as successful far beyond expectations as BOTW was, there are risks in developing new IPs but there are equally risks in Nintendo's insistence on making innovations in old IPs, it's a trade-off, what I'm thinking about as a gamer is that I want something completely different, something that is undoubtedly not possible with old IPs.

You got the problem wrong. The risk of developing new IPs is not solely due to IP. The ER and Starfield that I mentioned at the beginning illustrate this point. A new team is the risk, not the new IP.
Similarly, almost all ER players I have seen regard it as Soul 4, and Starfield sees it as a sequel to The Elder Scrolls V.
This is just changing the title.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

You got the problem wrong. The risk of developing new IPs is not solely due to IP. The ER and Starfield that I mentioned at the beginning illustrate this point. A new team is the risk, not the new IP.
Similarly, almost all ER players I have seen regard it as Soul 4, and Starfield sees it as a sequel to The Elder Scrolls V.
This is just changing the title.

Absolutely, I totally agree with you that the risk comes from the development team, so I think they can branch out into smaller teams to make an indie volume game instead of a large or medium sized production, that's my point.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

You got the problem wrong. The risk of developing new IPs is not solely due to IP. The ER and Starfield that I mentioned at the beginning illustrate this point. A new team is the risk, not the new IP.
Similarly, almost all ER players I have seen regard it as Soul 4, and Starfield sees it as a sequel to The Elder Scrolls V.
This is just changing the title.

Yeah, when it comes to elden ring, it's not really the brand anyway. Like, demon souls and dark souls and Bloodborne are all technically different IP by the actual definition, but it's missing the forest for the trees. The actual brand there of importance is "Fromsoft", and their very deliberately crafted brand identity of making games that follow their souls template , rather than the title of any of those games

 

[Prophet64]

This obsessive pining for Nintendo to create a "new IP" is so incredibly obnoxious and shallow.

And then when they do its people will say, "No, not that. Try again, we're all waiting for a new IP. This one doesn't count. Better hurry Nintendo or I shall dub thee 'doomed.'"

As Secu says, Nintendo generally has roughly one IP per genre. Soooooo... Zelda and Bayonetta kinda have their bases covered for action-adventure genre. Or Xenoblade for RPG action-adventure. Or if they revived Eternal Darkness for horror action-adventure.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

The premise of this thread is flawed because internal Nintendo EPD teams usually do not create games following "genres" but rather "gameplay ideas".

At this point the core gameplay idea of Splatoon has been used for a multiplayer online shooter, an action-y 3D platform, a Portal-esque game and and an action roguelike.

 

[RealUncleNintendo]

Create something new or remake some existing IP lost in a timeless void.

 

[rinku]

This obsessive pining for Nintendo to create a "new IP" is so incredibly obnoxious and shallow.

And then when they do its people will say, "No, not that. Try again, we're all waiting for a new IP. This one doesn't count. Better hurry Nintendo or I shall dub thee 'doomed.'"

As Secu says, Nintendo generally has roughly one IP per genre. Soooooo... Zelda and Bayonetta kinda have their bases covered for action-adventure genre. Or Xenoblade for RPG action-adventure. Or if they revived Eternal Darkness for horror action-adventure.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this (I said as much in other reply), but I think when you have an established IP you’re limiting yourself in terms of characteristics and conventions.

Like even though Breath of the Wild broke a lot of Zelda conventions, it’s still a Zelda game at the end of the day and so you still expect to lose hearts and do some dungeons, get heart containers etc.

Now if they wanted to do an open world game with a completely different gameplay system of combat and traversal? Maybe instead of riding on horseback, you chained parkour movements to speed yourself up like a sunset overdrive?

I’m sure if they tried to implement big changes like that, people would begin to ask what the identity of the series is anymore. Because for all their big changes to gameplay, TOTK and BOTW still are Zelda games (… Though you could make the argument TOTK has done away with even more than BOTW.)

This is all to say, a new IP allows you the opportunity to tackle that same genre unburdened from the expectations of fans to live up to certain preconceived characteristics. I would really like to see Nintendo do an action adventure that isn’t a Zelda game, but that doesn’t mean doing the same thing just without Link and Ganon. I’m sure many people would be interested in seeing what else Nintendo could bring, without having to also shoehorn in things from older IP to appease fans.

 

[Aether]

then you're asking the wrong question. Nintendo makes a lot of new IPs, some stick some don't. I think we're almost guaranteed to see a new IP. if it sticks, depends on how well it sells

Not just how well it sells.

One key factor is, does it spark future ideas and imagination with the developers.
A low to medium gets sequelles if Devs are ambitious about it. A million seller won't if nobody has ideas to push it in new directions

 

[Dekuman]

I am sure Nintendo would never say no to and or be closed to trying/creating a new IP, but that's putting the cart before the horse.

Nintendo devs come up with gameplay ideas then try to fit it into a game, and it may or may not be led by an existing characterIP.

I am sure if they come up with something that doesn't fit an existing IP, they will make a new IP around it. They don't go out with a mandate to do a 'Zelda-killer' or what have you that western third parties follow

 

[MaitreWakou]

I don't know if this ip has been abandoned.

Considering they made a ARMS character as DLC for Smash 3 years after ARMS release, chances are that they haven't abandonned it.

 

[HotelSyrup]

I don't know if this ip has been abandoned

I don't think Arms has been abandoned. For a series to be considered abandoned it has to go one or two console generations without receiving a new game imo.
Arms got a game on the latest console and a character from it got in as Smash DLC.

 

[Angel Whispers]

Don’t know about “new” IPs, but there’s a chance to revive existing ones. For example, a reboot of The Mysterious Murasame Castle would be a perfect fit, perhaps for a reboot. It can also be whatever they want it to be in a 3D space. I also feel that Mach Rider has untold potential in this area.

 

[Phendrift]

I don’t think they will, and I don’t necessarily need them too, but I see where OP is coming from.

Their top teams have been on Mario and Zelda for so long that I’m curious what a new straight up single player action-adventure game would even look like from them. What would be the new gameplay hook? How would they handle lore and story when not dealing with a franchise that’s 35+ years old?

Like I said, I don’t really need it and it wouldn’t make much sense either from a business or creative standpoint - as Mario and Zelda have both recently entered a creative renaissance and are selling better than ever - but I can’t lie, it’d be cool to peep into an alternate universe and see what a brand new single player IP with the budget given to M&Z by the M or Z team would look like.

 

[Adulfzen]

would said new action adventure really need to be specifically EPD rather than being supervised/funded/published by Nintendo which seems more likely from either a first party studio like Monolith Soft or by a third party studio like PG and Astral Chain (which would then I'd argue even more directorial control by EPD proper). So essentially the same way Sony is offering funding for games like Rise of the Ronin or Stellar Blade.

I'd certainly love EPD themselves doing it but they seem to have already their hands full just working on their existing franchises unless they dedicate an entirely new EPD group to solely creating "new" single player experiences but then again if one of those games became a massive hit they'd likely then work on it as a franchise.

So I guess my short answer is probably no, they're more likely gonna work on experimental new IPs rather than doing something more "traditional" since they have that area well covered by a bunch of existing franchises through new entries or remasters/remakes.