A Nintendo community
for the fans, by the fans!
 Go to forum index
Zelda Wii U Delayed Until Possibly 2016
News reported by 
March 28, 2015, 00:25:56
Well this is a hookshot to the balls...

The Legend of Zelda for the Wii U is officially delayed until possibly 2016. This news comes from a Development Update video (seen below) that Eiji Aonuma posted on Youtube. Mr. Aonuma of course is the director of this upcoming Nintendo title.

While he doesn't explicitly say the game will release in 2016 for sure, the team is no-longer using 2015 as a focus and thus they aren't trying to release it by year's end. Will they still pull it off? Maybe... but it's not probable from the sound of it.

Sure our initial reactions are that of sadness, disappointment, or anger,... but could this be a good thing? Maybe it's obviously one? More time, more ideas, more polish... should be wonderful right? Anyone worried about a Twilight Princess situation where the game eventually has a weak release on the original system in order to be even 'more spectacular' on the next-gen system? We have no reason to believe this would happen but it'd be kinda crazy if it did.

Discuss in the comments below.

URL to share this content (right click and copy link)
Posted: 03/28/15, 00:25:56  - Edited by 
 on: 03/28/15, 00:30:40    
Why not sign up for a (free) account and create your own content?
On the Giant Bomb forums tons of people were posting that they were planning on getting a Wii U for Zelda but now would never get a Wii U for that very reason. Of course how many of those people were really planning on getting one? Maybe a few, but I bet a bunch of them were just blowing smoke.

I wonder if Nintendo realized that announcing the NX and delaying Zelda a few days later would get this reaction. Seems like an obvious conclusion in hindsight, after what happened to Twilight Princess.

Posted by 
 on: 03/30/15, 20:34:23  - Edited by 
 on: 03/30/15, 20:35:46
V_s said:

I feel like you must be skipping over parts of my post then, because I've said several times now that it does apply to their 2015 statement. That's why I've been saying that Zelda Wii U is clearly a delay. Why do you keep insisting that I'm not counting it as a delay?

No. You're the one misunderstanding.

My argument is Nintendo have come out in the past and said, 'Holiday 2002' or ' 1st Quarter 1998'. But you keep telling me that this was never definite and for the past 15-20 years, we must have misunderstood Nintendo or something, and none of my evidence to support these timeframes is good enough.

....Then you claim 2015 was a 'definite' timeframe by Nintendo, and thus a delay.

In ten years time, we could be having this exact same argument when Nintendo delays Zelda NX+ or whatever, and there will be the exact same evidence supporting an original '2015' release timeframe for Zelda U as there was for all the others. Stories by IGN or whoever, reporting that Nintendo claimed there would be a release in period X, but now there was a delay to period Y.

Yet to you '2015' is gospel, and none of the timeframes for the other games were.

'2015' was no more definite than Nintendo's other announcements. There's absolutely no reason to think that it was.

I honestly don't think there's much point in continuing a discussion that's gone on for far too long. It's pretty clear to me (and a heck of a lot of other people), that there is a precedent for this, and we had fair reason to see this move coming. But if you want to believe that Nintendo never delayed any of it's past Zelda games and that this latest announcement was a complete blindside to you, there's not much more I can say. You believe what you believe, we'll believe what we believe.

Posted by 
 on: 03/30/15, 22:15:26  - Edited by 
 on: 03/30/15, 22:16:36
Does what happened to Twilight Princess seriously piss people off? Why? Nintendo released the game on the console they originally promised it for along with their newer console with some changes to fit it better. Some people even like the Gamecube version better because of the camera control and fact that Link is still a lefty. If it happens again, so what? You can get the version on the platform of your choice.

This sort of thing has been just downright standard lately anyway. Look at how many games have recently seen multiple versions across the previous and current generation Sony and MS consoles. It seems like people are always so quick to blast Nintendo for doing things that every other publisher and manufacturer also does...

We'll probably end up seeing Zelda in 2016 and the NX is 2017 anyway.

Posted by 
 on: 03/30/15, 22:33:38
Well to be fair Sony didn't delay The Last of Us just to put it on PS4, they just released it on a new console a year later. That's what pissed people off about Twilight Princess, they *seemingly* deliberately delayed it by at least a full year to put it on a new system, and it wasn't even a bump in graphics, at least with all of the PS4 remasters you get the games in higher-resolution etc.

Basically if TP would have released on GCN in 2005 and then Wii 2006 I don't think people would have been as pissed about it.

Posted by 
 on: 03/30/15, 22:40:21
I suppose it could piss off people who bought a specific console that didn't have much else they wanted for the game just to find out they could have skipped that console and got the shiny new one instead.

Which seems more likely in the case of the Wii U, which is struggling for games, than the Gamecube, doubly so if the Wii U only lasts 4 years. Not really for Nintendo fans like us who buy tons of games, but maybe someone who saw Mario 3D World and was like "I won't buy a Wii U for just this, but Zelda is coming eventually so..."

I dunno. I just buy every Nintendo platform and have no regrets.

Posted by 
 on: 03/30/15, 22:42:48

Hmmm, I always assumed that even the Gamecube version still benefited from this extra development time though... I highly doubt they were just sitting on it and waiting.

That's definitely true about the benefits to improved graphics we see on these PS3/PS4 games and such, but we all know now that the Wii really wasn't much of an improvement over Gamecube in that regard anyway. Twilight Princess actually holds up as a good looking Wii game even if it isn't a Wii game. Haha.

I don't know. I'm a patient person and I don't sweat this stuff. I think I preferred waiting and having a Zelda game to play at launch on the shiny new system I was definitely going to buy anyway.


That's just another example of "it's wrong when Nintendo does it." Microsoft only supported the original Xbox for four years because they saw a strategic benefit to launching a year ahead of Sony. Nobody gave them grief over it... they were ready to just Jump In (tee hee hee!). People are already bitching about the announcement of the NX, like merely having a codename for the next gen console has already killed the Wii U. I'm still betting that we get the NX in 2017, thus getting a full five years of support for the Wii U, but even if it ends up being 2016 instead, Nintendo has much better reasons for a four year cycle this time around than Microsoft did back then.

I don't know. Maybe these complainers are all youngsters and they think that consoles should last for 7-8 years after the freakishly long lifespan of the previous consoles.

Posted by 
 on: 03/30/15, 22:49:36  - Edited by 
 on: 03/30/15, 22:58:46
Shadowlink said:
My argument is Nintendo have come out in the past and said, 'Holiday 2002' or ' 1st Quarter 1998'. But you keep telling me that this was never definite and for the past 15-20 years, we must have misunderstood Nintendo or something, and none of my evidence to support these timeframes is good enough.

Okay, no. This is not what I've said. I've only said that 1) Nintendo did release the game holiday 2002, so that can't be a delay, and 2) only IGN has said "1st Quarter 1998"; there's no direct evidence that this date ever came from Nintendo (but even if we do assume that Nintendo said this, that means only 3 of the 18 Zelda games have been delayed in the past).

Shadowlink said:
I honestly don't think there's much point in continuing a discussion that's gone on for far too long. It's pretty clear to me (and a heck of a lot of other people), that there is a precedent for this

There's also precedent for people to believe that Nintendo doesn't release Mature-rated games and always has the weakest system, but we wouldn't argue that either of those are true, would we?

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 00:28:40  - Edited by 
 on: 03/31/15, 00:29:20
Well it's hard to know how this stuff really shakes out, but there was at least the appearance that TP could have come out earlier on GCN if it wasn't for the Wii port taking precedence. I was kind of mad about it at the time because back in those days I only had a GCN so the loss of that game meant I had almost nothing to play during the long wait for Wii. Then I got an Xbox for like $100 new and played Halo and Chronicles of Riddick and Kotor so it ended up being a fun, if weird year. While tons of people played games on the 360 I played a bunch of stuff on the old fatty black Xbox! (I actually loved that console, I wish I wouldn't have sold it, I even liked the stupid "matrix green" UI )

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 01:01:32

Ocarina of Time was delayed. Originally expected in 1997, then early 1998, finally hit at the end of that year.

Wind Waker was delayed. Miyamoto said Holiday 2002, it hit in 2003 (in the west)

Twilight Princess was delayed. It was supposed to release in 2005, it was delayed over a year to bring it to the Wii.

Skyward Sword was delayed. It was originally expected to hit in 2010, didn't arrive until Nov 2011.

The information for every one of these articles was ultimately sourced from Nintendo. I've even included a Nintendo Power link for the Ocarina stuff.

Basically, your entire argument seems to rest on the absurd notion that for over 15 years the collective gaming media has been misreporting Zelda release information, and at no point did Nintendo bother to correct the record.

I might as well be arguing about the existence of gravity with you. The evidence is all there. The conclusions are solid. But if your response is simply 'Oh that's just a theory. Lot's of other theories have been wrong', then no amount of evidence will sway you.

You can continue to disbelieve if you want. It just means you're going to get blindsided again when the next Zelda game gets delayed. Or hit in the head with an apple.

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 01:04:00  - Edited by 
 on: 03/31/15, 01:06:48
@Hinph Devil's Advocate: Most Xbox owners were happier with the amount of content on the Xbox than Wii U owners are with the amount of content on the Wii U, so they would have less of a reason to feel "ripped off" or whatever. Also I don't know of any major Xbox titles that were supposed to come out near the end and got an Xbox / Xbox 360 simultaneous release... not that we know this will happen to Zelda, but it could?

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 03:56:05
I wouldn't care too much if the Wii U ended "early".

Let's say theoretically Zelda comes out in March 2016, it's the last big game on Wii U, and in November 2016 the NX launches. I'd be pretty happy with that.

If the NX is 2017 then I hope there's a lot of good stuff announced for Wii U between now and then.

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 04:07:48

Well, it did have Panzer Dragoon Orta on it, and that more than validates its entire existence. <3 <3 <3

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 05:27:40  - Edited by 
 on: 03/31/15, 05:28:37


Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 05:51:48
I don't care when the Wii U ends cuz I've loved it since day one and will obviously buy any home Nintendo console ever til the end of time barring them pulling some Square Enix/Capcom/everyone else downfall.

Whatever keeps Nintendo going, I support. But I would also love to see them at their former level of dominance, even though in this day it seems very unlikely for anyone to do it again. I would love to see them in Valve or Apple's position. If anyone should have a monopoly on gaming, it's probably Nintendo. I think they've made it clear the last thing they wanna do is destroy that medium. They've always seemed to be into what's healthy for the industry.

Them avoiding pricey costs and the situation games are in now just proves they were right. It's goddamn ridiculous how games need to sell these days just to make a profit.

Don't know what the fuck Sony and MS have been thinking the past 2 gens pushing for tech developers can't even afford. Wii U gave developers a way out but of course they go for even more expensive shit, when they already complained about costs last gen. Fuckin' idiotic.

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 11:11:04

Yeah, the obsession with graphics has hurt the industry so much... and it couldn't have come at a worse time, economically. We've lost a lot of great developers and publishers, and even the ones that haven't gone out of business are now husks of their former selves, forced to merge with others and focus on other sources of revenue. I wonder what the industry would look like if more publishers decided to not invest so heavily in the best visuals.

I suspect that even this recent feud between Kojima and Konami is based on somebody finally saying "this is absolutely insane. We are increasingly spending more to make less. Tell him no way!"

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 11:50:24
I don't blame Sony and Microsoft for making powerful consoles, if they didn't put out machines capable of at least decent levels of fidelity then they'd lose even more ground to the PC (although has anyone ever found it odd that Microsoft is essentially competing with itself when it puts up the Xbox against Windows? I'm sure there are financial reasons that to them make sense, it's just bizarre in some ways, why not try to bolster their OS monopoly by attempting to eliminate alternative means to accessing content, hasn't that always been their strategy?).

Gamers want games with good graphics, some are willing to spend thousands of dollars to say that their good graphics are slightly more good than yours. That's the world we live in.

Fortunately gamers want lot of other things too, things like Shovel Knight that don't require bleeding edge graphics, so there a lots of options for developers if they don't have the budgets to compete with GTA and Call of Duty. It's hard for me to feel too sorry for publishers like Capcom when they're sitting on amazing IPs like Mega Man but doing diddly squat with him, instead alienating it's creator and have him go off on his own to make a game that will most likely be way more successful than everything non-Monster-Hunter-in-Japan that Capcom has done in the past 5 years.

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 16:58:46  - Edited by 
 on: 03/31/15, 16:59:26
Nintendo Direct tomorrow.

I was going to comment that the video looked like it was taken from an upcoming Direct and the fact they posted it by -itself- meant they'd pulled the Direct and were saving stuff for E3. But now I suspect they thought people would doubt the delay news was true if it was announced on April Fools. :p

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 17:06:58  - Edited by 
 on: 03/31/15, 17:11:54
It's not that big games are becoming impossible to break even on it's that devs who think style over substance is an acceptable practice are going to get burned worse than they used to.

This is a world where GTA V the most expensive game ever made is now the third best selling game ever, where Activision put $500 million in to a new franchise in Destiny and have already come out ahead. Who suffers is groups like Ready at Dawn who make Order 1886 and think that visual spectacle will excuse anemic content, dull gameplay, and lack of diversity. I don't worry about games like Arkham Knight or Mortal Kombat X doing alright. They will do just fine. The content is there, the quality (looks to be) there. I feel bad for companies like Visceral. Who make a great franchise like Dead Space and it isn't enough for EA so they push microtransactions, and co-op, and a weird love triangle story in to a game that doesn't need any of that shit. They expect it to sell way more because they make it more banal and status quo. And then when it doesn't, they put the team on Battlefield Hardline. A game that is about as derivative as it gets. And if that sells poorly EA will close them down. That to me is the real shame.

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 17:37:36

Yeah, good post. The industry has been struggling lately with the whole power chase, and I'm not really sure where it's all going to lead. It seems a lot of gamers have already gotten weary and disillusioned with many big-budget games, and are turning to indie games on their consoles and stuff like Steam.

What's weird is that Capcom was originally the first one to capitalize on the "gameplay first" mantra of indie games...with their highly successful Mega Man 9! I have no idea why they abandoned that idea (and indeed, the whole series) when it was working for them. Pretty dumb.

Posted by 
 on: 03/31/15, 17:39:49
I guess whatever happens will happen... videogames are here to stay in one form or another. As pessimistic as I am about the state of the big traditional players in the industry, I'm optimistic about what indie developers are doing. We still live in a world where a small team of people with a quirky good idea can get funding and make a game happen, and that's extremely important in an industry like this.

I guess I must be in the oddball minority, but I have been satisfied with graphics since the Dreamcast. I'm not denying that I like the crazy amazing visuals that we see from modern games, but they have come at such a high cost.

Posted by 
 on: 04/01/15, 03:41:13
Browse    3  4  5  6  7