By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Veknoid_Outcast on 30 January 2013
Edit Thread
OneTwoThree said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

That's...actually not a bad idea. A Zelda trilogy, if handled correctly, could be really good. Maybe each game could focus on a single piece of the Triforce?


Don't know if it has to be a trilogy, but one thing I've realized when replaying MM (mentioned that in an earlier post) is: Nintendo should take the pressure off of themselves to make the be-all-end-all Zelda that beats every previous milestone in every respect. MM is so cool because it is a sidestep to these expectations.

Nintendo should do that again: sidestep expectations. Make a smaller Zelda, make a Zelda that only happens in a dream, make 2 Zeldas that play in radically different, complemetary settings, make a Zelda that starts with, dunno, Link dying and Zelda having to travel back and prevent it from happening, make a Zelda that starts with a previous bossfight but a different ending... I'm sure they can come up with way better, weirder stuff than I. 

They can't please everybody anymore at this point, anyway. Making the better OoT or aLttP is a hopeless undertaking - not because they cannot achieve this (imo Zelda games keep improving, largely), but because of fans' nostalgia.

Nintendo EAD seems to have a rhythm going: one traditional Zelda, then one unorthodox Zelda. There are a few exceptions, but this seems to be a trend. I really like that strategy, because it keeps the formula fresh and it satisfies a large group of fans.

I don't know, I don't really feel like Nintendo is trying to make an "Ocarina-killer" every time out. With the possible exception of Skyward Sword. I think everyone knew what they were doing with SS: it was meant to reinvent the series. Whether it was successful in doing so is a debate for another time, but it definitely STRIVED for greatness.

Anyway, I think you are right. Nintendo shouldn't be afraid to experiment with Zelda.