Four Swords. To Be or Not to Be.

[robocrobat]

Is Four swords an "official" Zelda game? I have seen this debate go on but not on Zelda dungeon. :hmm: Just wondering.

 

[SirBeta]

I say it is. The gameplay is different, but it's story still contributes to the overall legend. I mean, it had a prequel (Minish Cap) and a sequel (Four Swords Adventures).

 

[ocarina hero]

yes it is

 

[Triforce82]

I think it is and yet it isn't. I haven't been able to see this game as a one-player when it was re-released on the 3ds, but I have been able to play it twice. It is a little difficult to find players to link up with and all of the hook-ups. It is fun and yet it is a little short. There is a little bit of information in the game, but I don't think there is anything too drastic. I think the focus on Zelda games is suppose to be the experience of the individual, hence the character's name is "Link." This is suppose to make you feel like the hero. When there is multiple players that is not controlled by the player, it doesn't feel like an official Zelda game.

I still love this game and wish I had more people around me that would like to play it, but I don't consider it as part of the "main" series. I enjoy it just for the mere fact that it is a Zelda game.

 

[robocrobat]

I never really felt as if it was a zelda game, becuse it had not-so-great storyline...was it even Nintendo?

 

[Majora's Cat]

Four Swords was published by Nintendo and developed by Grezzo, and Four Swords Adventures was developed and published by Nintendo. Not to mention that both games are factored into the official Zelda timeline, the answer becomes pretty clear.

If you're talking about the Four Swords games as being similar to other Zelda games, I think they're quite the derision from the classic formula. But what I consider to be the untouchable core elements of a Zelda game, namely the gameplay, main characters and control scheme aren't tampered around much in either game. While both games are multiplayer (an almost alien term to apply to a Zelda title) and feature a Link that can divide into four, they are unmistakably Zelda. What else would you call them?

 

[linkbox135]

yeah it's official! nintendo made it didn't they they even REmade it

 

[link's hat]

of course, some people just dont think so because it has unusual game play. that makes it unpopular, but still zelda. it's even in the timeline

 

[Tetra's Wink]

Yep, it's official. It's on the timeline, so that confirms it IMO. No doubt it's a smaller zelda game, but still, official nonetheless.

Plus, compare it to the 'unofficial' ones - it's definitely more 'official' than link's crossbow training and the tingle games.

 

[Groose]

Its on the timeline so yep.

 

[TwilightDeku]

Hyrule historia has a whole section on it and includes it in their timeline. It's idea of four Links is legendary. I don't think it is that great of a game... but it did introduce Vaati. I still do not like the idea of "levels"...

 

[ZombieMeatballs]

Yes, four swords is official. It follows after the Minish Cap and story is applicable to the Zelda timeline. Plus it was Developed by Nintendo I believe.

 

[Karskjee]

yeah, its official, but not nearly as good as any other zelda game.

 

[Mivfs]

It's a different game with different gameplay but it's still on the timeline so yes it is.

 

[robocrobat]

Well thank for the clearafication... I haven't read Hyrule Historia.