Are Cdi Zelda Games Considered to Be Real Zelda Games?

[Michael Heide]

If it was just a matter of budget and time restrictions, I wonder why they created two mediocre games at once instead of making one better game.

 

[Ventus]

The CD-I games are real Zelda games, they just aren't "official". I can't explain it beyond "they just don't fit with the main series". You (Smitie) are right when you say there was no standard, but the gameplay just wasn't "as good" as ALttP, LoZ, or AoL. I've never played them myself (only watched the scenes), but from all sorts of reviews they really stood out, in the negative way, from the other Zelda games of that time.

 

[TheGreen]

If it was just a matter of budget and time restrictions, I wonder why they created two mediocre games at once instead of making one better game.

Money. 3 games make more money than one.

I think at this point, people recognized success with the series so they were trying to ride on it's coat tails. Disfortunamente, at some point this means that the series is characterized by terrible spin off games. I think that Nintendo learned it's not good to lend the Zelda name to just any old company. Link's crossbow training isn't an embarrassment as it's a little "try out our new accessories" game. Also it doesn't have "The Legend of Zelda" in the title.

 

[arkvoodle]

Most of what I would say has already been said, so i'll just summarise the rest of my points.

The CDi games are not real zelda games. They are made by Phillips, who made some sort of deal with Nintendo in an attempt to advertise their new console, the Phillips CDi. Among fans, the games can sometimes be considered as canon, while in reality, they are completely separate.

In other words- not canon. Completely separate from the mainstream zelda series. At most, they're a low budget side game.

 

[Ganondork]

Technically, they are real. We can play them, we can hold the (disk? cartridge?) in our hand. We can't ignore it's presence. However, it has no licensing from Nintendo, and for the most part don't even look like the regular Zelda games. It shouldn't be considered a Zelda game, it should be considered a failed game made by Phillips.

 

[MrZach]

I've never actually played either of them, but I've watched the AVGN reviews, and they just look like a pair of grotesque knock-offs.

I guess technically they could be considered Zelda games, but saying so would be a very broad statement.

 

[Austin]

In other words- not canon. Completely separate from the mainstream zelda series. At most, they're a low budget side game.

Non-canon doesn't mean that they aren't real Zelda games, though. For example, many anime adaptations of popular manga series use filler episodes as a method of filling up time. While those episodes aren't canon and usually don't contribute to the overarching storyline, it would be erroneous in most cases to say that it isn't the same series.

Ultimately, I believe it falls to the individual to decide whether these games count as "real" Zelda games. Everyone has a different interpretation of that word anyway; I'm sure there are people out there that don't consider games like Four Swords Adventures to be a "real" Zelda game.

 

[Darknut]

I've never played one, but I still don't consider them to be one

 

[ALTTP]

Look at the top game bar on Zelda Dungeon....add fs/fsa

 

[loplop67]

Yes, I feel it is real. The Minish Cap was not made by nintendo either but most consider it "real". when I bought every Zelda game ever made I made sure to have all 3 cdi games in my collection.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

being from the future, I feel I have more credibility than the rest of you

...stop