General Zelda Anyone else Tired of a New Link,new Story?

[Wolf Sage]

While I wouldn't necessarily say I'm tired of there being a new Link every time, I do think that it would be cool to see the stories of some of the established Links be expanded upon a bit more. For instance, I've always wanted to see another chapter in the Hero of Time saga. Even if Nintendo didn't go so far as to do this, perhaps they could at least allow for a cameo appearance of one of the previous Links in a future game--similar in fashion to HOT's appearance (as the Shade) in Twilight Princess.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

I'm sorry but are you really a fan of this series? because it sounds like you aren't.

....leave

Nope. The Zelda series is about the new strapping young hero taking on a new quest, with new friends to get acquainted with, new foes to get enraged at, new dungeons to solve, etc.

we can still have all that,except that 'new strapping young hero' won't be new anymore

 

[the8thark]

Instead of making a new Link, they should take an old story of a previous Link and "remake" it, as in make an entirely new game but retell an the old game, this way they can add more things but don't have to use a new Link. Of course they don't have to do this every time but do this only for the games that takes place in Hyrule.

This is how Star Fox 64 is, it is the same story of the SNES Star Fox but it adds new characters like Star Wolf and stuff.

Basically reboot an old Zelda game?
In your example there is one catch. The lore from Star Fox was dismissed totally and the Starfox 64 (Lylat Wars) lore is now considered to be true. It's not re-telling the story, it's more like forgetting the previous game existed (lore wise) and starting a fresh. I don't think it'd work for a new Zelda game. The lore is already spelled out in the Hyrule Hysteria book. And Nintendo are not really in the mood for any more re-makes at the moment. I really think a totally new (not new with reused parts from old Zelda games) is what is needed.

 

[Salem]

Basically reboot an old Zelda game?
In your example there is one catch. The lore from Star Fox was dismissed totally and the Starfox 64 (Lylat Wars) lore is now considered to be true. It's not re-telling the story, it's more like forgetting the previous game existed (lore wise) and starting a fresh. I don't think it'd work for a new Zelda game. The lore is already spelled out in the Hyrule Hysteria book. And Nintendo are not really in the mood for any more re-makes at the moment. I really think a totally new (not new with reused parts from old Zelda games) is what is needed.

I see it more like the older game is like the "basic" story, while the newer one has more "add-on" to it.

However, because they already revealed a timeline and stuff, I guess it's too late to do this idea.

 

[Justac00lguy]

I like the idea of further building upon an existing Link as it gives the game a base, a bigger meaning and can allow for more character devolpement etc.

There's a lot of advantages that come with making sequel's in my opinion as the series is typically segregated into separate tales of Link, so the entire plot line feels rather loose and disconnected. This, however, gives Nintendo flexibility - they can simply create a new legend with a new Link, a new story, a new setting etc. This is how the series was meant to be done if I recall. The whole reason for "Legend" was to create separate Legends of Link and his adventures. Of course now we know of the Timeline and that these "Legends" do connect.

I'm not necessarily tired of a new Link and a new story; however, it would be nice to have a "Chronicles of Link" series were said game explores Link's other adventures. This would eventually lead onto a game were Link is an older and much more mature figure - which is a want of mine.

 

[Beauts]

Generally I don't mind there being new Link's. It's a familiarity thing for the player, to be as new to the thing as Link, the character you're controlling. However, I agree it wouldn't hurt to reuse some Link's. For example, they could easily reuse SS Link when he comes to the surface or TP Link. It worked for MM, reusing Child Link from OoT.

 

[Heroine of Time]

Here in lies an issue with the series. Many fans don't want certain things to change.

How I view it is, if its a good idea, then there's nothing wrong with implementing it. However, I do understand the fear of change. SS made a lot of fans upset with its linear overworld, TP's and WW's graphical designs pushed alot of fans away, and AoL... need I say more? It's not that change can't harm a game, history has certainly proven otherwise, but if we constantly fear change, then the series is just going to continue to be rehashed. Innovation isn't made by playing it safe, and that's what I want to see out of the series... innovation. Many people agree that MM is the best made Zelda game, yet when you really look at it, it is so different from the others (including being a direct sequel). Yes, certain traditions should stick but using the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" can really hinder what could've been progress.

While I agree with what you're saying, I find this argument a bit out of place here. You make it sound as though expanding on one Link's adventure would be some kind of new prospect that no one's even tried before. We have AoL, LA, MM, OoX, and PH. As a result, I'm not so sure it can be qualified as "change". And I don't think that any of those games were phenomenally more innovative -- or more hated -- than others solely because they featured the same Link.

Personally, I don't care what Nintendo does, as long as it's a good game. But I don't see anything wrong either way. Featuring the same Link -- at least so far -- hasn't changed the gameplay at all. Neither has creating a new hero. Now, maybe if they wanted to do something interesting with a returning hero, like giving you all your items from the previous game at the beginning... That could be interesting. But that's another matter.

I can't really see this. The end of an adventure may be in one game, but that doesn't necessarily mean the end of Link's story. Most Links go off to have even more adventures. The concept of creating a sequel isn't that hard in terms of story creation, as all you have to do is ask "what happened after happily ever after?" This is why AoL, MM and PH exist. You could easily create a sequel to Twilight Princess if you wanted to and it could have nothing to do with the Twili or Hyrule for that matter. All you need is the protagonist to keep venturing.

Now, this KIND of contradicts my indifferent attitude that I just established, hahaha, but I'm kind of in agreement with Ventus in the sense that I feel like most Links' adventures are done by the end of the game. Yeah, you CAN make up new stories for them to follow after their original quest, but WHY? I can only imagine the cries that Nintendo has lost its originality if they kept making new sequels alone. If you're going to create an entirely new adventure for TP Link that has nothing to do with the Twili or Hyrule, why even make it TP Link? Why not make it a new character and avoid limiting yourself to the confines of a sequel?

I guess MM did this, and PH to an extent... Both of those games could have been entirely new. So far sequels have turned out well, but I don't want Nintendo to start making sequels just for the sake of making sequels. I'd like a new title every once and a while. I'm not against sequels, but there are very few benefits or disadvantages to them. I see nothing wrong with new heroes.

 

[Ventus]

I can't really see this. The end of an adventure may be in one game, but that doesn't necessarily mean the end of Link's story. Most Links go off to have even more adventures. The concept of creating a sequel isn't that hard in terms of story creation, as all you have to do is ask "what happened after happily ever after?" This is why AoL, MM and PH exist. You could easily create a sequel to Twilight Princess if you wanted to and it could have nothing to do with the Twili or Hyrule for that matter. All you need is the protagonist to keep venturing.

I should've gotten back to this earlier, but...

To the bolded part, that's the thing with Zelda's sequels: the folks typically weren't happy after the fact. In the case of Ocarina of Time, Link wasn't happy - his fairy left him for no (onscreen?) explained reason, and he was also left with the fact that he wasn't even a true Kokiri. Thus we got Majora's Mask as a followup to OoT, in all its glory. Using OoT as a sort of splinter, Twilight Princess was introduced to further that Hero's story which wasn't quite done at hte end of OoT; I mentioned that he knew that he wasn't a Kokiri, and that's where the Hero's Shade stuff comes into play.

The same sort of stuff can be said for Wind Waker. In that game, we're explicitly told that Link and his amazing girlfriend Tetra are supposed to find a new land -- their land. Because they are shown going out on the pirate ship towards the end (iirc?), and even when we see that the King of Red Lions is no longer possessed, we get the games Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks.

What I'm trying to say (and this won't come out right ;p) is that a sequel needs a solid handle in order for it to exist within reason. Otherwise, we get into the realm of 'sequel just because' and no one wants any of that!

 

[the8thark]

The big issue here is the rehash Zelda games are the biggest sellers. Hard to play with the formula a lot when you know the more you play with it, the less game sales revenue you'll get.
Also the make is important. A lot of people will buy a Zelda game just cause it's a Zelda game. Replace Link with Joe Hero and friends and it'd be a harder sell. Nintendo would have to make it really wacky and market the hell out of it. This worked with Pikmin. But it's an issue to deal with. It's always a balance between innovation and potential sales revenue.

I think the sales will dictate if we get a new story or a rehash game.

 

[Random Person]

While I agree with what you're saying, I find this argument a bit out of place here. You make it sound as though expanding on one Link's adventure would be some kind of new prospect that no one's even tried before. We have AoL, LA, MM, OoX, and PH. As a result, I'm not so sure it can be qualified as "change". And I don't think that any of those games were phenomenally more innovative -- or more hated -- than others solely because they featured the same Link.

You're right, however, while it may not be a new idea, the quotes I put in my posts show that people use it being a new idea as an excuse.

Now, this KIND of contradicts my indifferent attitude that I just established, hahaha, but I'm kind of in agreement with Ventus in the sense that I feel like most Links' adventures are done by the end of the game. Yeah, you CAN make up new stories for them to follow after their original quest, but WHY? I can only imagine the cries that Nintendo has lost its originality if they kept making new sequels alone. If you're going to create an entirely new adventure for TP Link that has nothing to do with the Twili or Hyrule, why even make it TP Link? Why not make it a new character and avoid limiting yourself to the confines of a sequel?

I guess MM did this, and PH to an extent... Both of those games could have been entirely new. So far sequels have turned out well, but I don't want Nintendo to start making sequels just for the sake of making sequels. I'd like a new title every once and a while. I'm not against sequels, but there are very few benefits or disadvantages to them. I see nothing wrong with new heroes.

I must answer your "why" with a "why not?" I'm not saying they have to be done, but there's nothing wrong with doing them. Actually, when I think about it, most "series" don't jump out of order or to parallel timelines, though there are many that do. And one major advantage a direct sequel has is familiarity if it is done right. Many fans who enjoyed TP did so because of how much it related to OoT. Of course, there's the counterargument that you stated in that familiarity leads people to feel the series is in a rut. This is why a sequel should be more of the same, but different aka expanding on what has been done.

I should've gotten back to this earlier, but...

To the bolded part, that's the thing with Zelda's sequels: the folks typically weren't happy after the fact. In the case of Ocarina of Time, Link wasn't happy - his fairy left him for no (onscreen?) explained reason, and he was also left with the fact that he wasn't even a true Kokiri. Thus we got Majora's Mask as a followup to OoT, in all its glory. Using OoT as a sort of splinter, Twilight Princess was introduced to further that Hero's story which wasn't quite done at hte end of OoT; I mentioned that he knew that he wasn't a Kokiri, and that's where the Hero's Shade stuff comes into play.

The same sort of stuff can be said for Wind Waker. In that game, we're explicitly told that Link and his amazing girlfriend Tetra are supposed to find a new land -- their land. Because they are shown going out on the pirate ship towards the end (iirc?), and even when we see that the King of Red Lions is no longer possessed, we get the games Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks.

What I'm trying to say (and this won't come out right ;p) is that a sequel needs a solid handle in order for it to exist within reason. Otherwise, we get into the realm of 'sequel just because' and no one wants any of that!

Quite frankly, I don't see anything wrong with "sequel just because." When a game... or any adventure, has a set happily ever after, indeed it can get annoying. However, rarely do Zelda games have that. They usually end with "and Link continued adventuring" but do so in a closure way so that they could either end that specific Link's tale there, or keep going.

Here's some examples outside the Zelda series.

Spoiler

Jak 2 ended with a final happily ever after. Everything was saved and the heroes were at peace. But for some reason, Jak3 was released. While I love Jak 3, it wasn't needed storywise and didn't really make much sense. This is where making a sequel was probably not a good idea (despite that Jak 3 is my favorite of the trilogy)

Then we have Army of Two. Army of Two had a happily ever after as well. The two heroes saved the day and started their own company. However, the ending was basically saying they went on to have more adventures. So while a sequel wasn't needed, it could easily be made.

So sequels aren't always needed, but that doesn't mean they're a bad idea simply because the previous story had a conclusive ending.

 

[bfrost97]

The changes in the story are what make the games new. We can't have every Link be the hero of time, you know. I also wouldn't consider any version of Link "well-established" as very few art-styles for Link last more than 3 or 4 games. It's a pretty silly idea, to have a static hero and plot and all. Zelda would offer no variety, and then what's really motivating me to go out and buy every new Zelda game that comes out? Nothing, really.

 

[Random Person]

The changes in the story are what make the games new. We can't have every Link be the hero of time, you know. I also wouldn't consider any version of Link "well-established" as very few art-styles for Link last more than 3 or 4 games. It's a pretty silly idea, to have a static hero and plot and all. Zelda would offer no variety, and then what's really motivating me to go out and buy every new Zelda game that comes out? Nothing, really.

First, I'd like to address the bolded part. There are games that host the same stories over and over and yet people still buy them. While I'm not saying that a game shouldn't change its story, because it should, the feeling of "new" comes from more than just the story. Star Fox 64 has the exact same story with the exact same characters, but it feels different from the older version of Star Fox seeing how it plays and how it looks.

And to say that "using the same character is silly" makes one take notice of other successful franchises. Why are Mario, Sonic and Metroid games so well known, despite using the same protagonists? Why do games like Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted and Mass Effect get reviews as excellent games despite that the stories and characters continue on from where the last game left off. It's hard to boast that using the same characters and plot offers little variety when other genre's have proven otherwise.

Here's an interesting question. If the Zelda series has reached the point that its players feel the game is too similar without switching protagonists, what does that say about the series as a whole?

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

why is there a misconception that just b/c we use a link from before,we can't add anything new to the table?
he can have new friends,get new items & equipment,explore a new land,have a new journey,have a new start

it could still have the feel of a new zelda game,just w/ a guy we've seen before [i mean christ,look at other game franchises that feature the same protagonist]

 

[OcarinistOfTime]

I'm sorry but are you really a fan of this series? because it sounds like you aren't.

That sounds pretty harsh just for someone voicing their opinion about the series growth. I mean, by your logic must you hate WW to be a "fan"? It broke the formula in many ways but did so beautifully and crafted, imo, the best masterpiece the series has to date. Or MM for that matter that honestly seemed to forget Zelda had a formula and is in my top 5 games in the series. The series needs to be re-invented from time to time it's what has made it one of the most beloved video game franchises for the past 25+ years. Sure, some of the changes haven't been received well (I'm looking at you AoL) but that just means next game they can stick a bit closer to the formula and get their fans back before trying to blow our minds with something new.


But back to the topic at hand, I'd love to see the Hero of Time get another game. I have ever since I actually played MM (I used to have an unfounded hatred for MM before I played it. Oh looks, he gots mask, he's not in Hyrules and theirs no gannon herp derp has to be terrible. But then I played it just for the sake of my completionist spirit needing to say I'd beat it and realized Holy Sparkles This is the bees knees!!) I want more Termina! I want more Navi! (I know I'm alone) I want more masks! I want more mythology different from Hyrule! I want to travel between Hyrule and Termina through cracks with my magical bracelet! Oh wait, I'm going the wrong way here. Um... Ravio made me do it.

 

[HerosShade10]

To be quite honest, I'm pretty even on the subject. I like a new Link here and there but every 2 games or so, i'd like a new Link. like phantom hourglass and wind waker. or ocarina and majora. My point is, I think it should be a balance of both. So like after aLBW, zelda wii u should be the same link from tp or something. or same link from minish cap.