I was reading this thread by RealGamingExpert about Reggie and Nintendo being opposed to annualized games where an interesting topic popped up. Originating in a reply to this post, the discussion steered towards whether or not Nintendo already does annualized franchises. In particular, Pokémon, but also Mario and Zelda. You could have this discussion about every series, but I'll stick to Zelda here. The ongoing discussion about Zelda being an annualized franchise has found it's core basically in "what counts".

This got me interested.

Indeed, "what counts?" Therefore I'm going to try to create a breakdown of each and every release in the entire Zelda series and (Nintendo) games related to it in any way, to see what should count, and to see whether or not the series is now indeed an annualized franchise. I was going to just reply to the other topic, but I figured a reply this big could do with it's own thread. Initially, I'm counting every release, everything Zelda related.

It's a big list, and here it is:

* No, 'BS' doesn't stand for b******t.

** Released together in one package.

*** Part of the Gamecube's Zelda Collector's Edition disc.

**** Excuse the formatting, there's only so much I can do these days on VGC, I guess it looks better to people with wider screens .

Obviously, going off this list, the first column undoubtedly counts. These "primary" games are the most important ones, as they are each fresh beginnings, include a new Link and spawn their own lore. The second column equally counts, they are all canon, main games like the ones in the first column, but these are games related to another one in the series, lessening their impact a little. Basically, every game that starts with the words "The Legend of" counts.

That's where the easy part ends however.

The third column is spin-offs, non-canon games that do not necessarily feature the series's core game-mechanics. I would still put them a tier higher than remakes and ports because they are still unique, original games. Do they count though? They count in the way that they keep the series alive and going. Even tough there was no new original game in 2014, the series was kept in the eyes of the consumer because of Hyrule Warriors.

Then come the remakes and major remasters which we've seen several of the past couple of decades. The story I feel is the same as that of the spin-off category. They are still major releases that keep the series alive in a similar way and when these re-released games are so old, they will introduce a new audience for whom the games are for all intents and purposes, new.

Related to the large remakes and remasters are the other re-releases. Mostly straight ports of older games, lately distributed through digital media. This is the first category I would say definitively does not count, because their releases are met with little fanfare and usually go under the radar. They are more a fan-service than anything.

Finally, there's cameos of Zelda related items and easter-eggs. Obviously, this does not count because none of those are games of the Zelda series. However, things like characters in other games do keep the series popular and familiar. Keep it relevant. Judging from the list, they have become more and more prevalent as the generations progressed. So far, the 8th Gen is particularly good in this area. The Zelda series seems to be used more and more to promote other series. Including this column, the series is now probably one of the most used Nintendo franchises.

I'd say 'traditionally' speaking (traditionally in the vein of Call of Duty or Fifa being yearly), in the way people usually take the term, Zelda is not a yearly franchise, because only the first two columns should count in the stricktest sense. Ignoring home-console/handheld platform switches, it is a bi-yearly franchise more or less since the end of the fifth generation.

However, I'd still consider remakes and spin-offs as being substantial releases. With those, the franchise does become almost 'yearly' in the modern age, at least from the 7th Gen up. At the very least, they are keeping the franchise relevant almost every year with some sort of release or acknowledgement. The fact that so many people in the other thread would now consider the whole series as basically being 'yearly', proves this works. If this is considered a yearly franchise, I'd say it's one of the better handled ones!

So, there's my second ever thread in my VGC history. What do you say, is Zelda indeed a yearly franchise and is Reggie being a bit hypocritical? Where would you cut of the releases and what counts?

Nope.

The main game's released 2 to 5 year's.

no

You answered your own question. No. Unless you count silly things like Soul Calibur 2 and iQue releases, then there isn't a Zelda game every year. Seems pretty open and shut.

I wish they had new zelda game every year, instead they just keep releasing remakes that's worse.

When people speak of a series being annual, they generally mean the mainline entries. No spinoffs and some only talk of mainline entries on the primary platform (home console vs handheld). And under neither of those would Zelda be considered an annual series.

The 2nd column makes no fucking sense to me, what makes it secondary?? Is it the same Link as a past game??
This line "The second column also counts, these are games related to another one in the series, but still main entries. Basically, every game that starts with the words "The Legend of" counts." isnt all that helpful as all games are related to one another.

why do people even question this ?

no, its not.

Not really.

Just a heads up, Link's Awakening DX is for the GBC. Also, good job making that list, I would never have the patience to do that xD