How important is Princess Zelda to the franchise?

[Spirit]

I don't just mean in Skyward Sword, i mean the series as a whole.

My girlfriend isn't a Zelda fan and she constantly says rescuing Zelda is all you do in those games... which aint true!

But it got me to thinking, Zelda hasn't appeared in every title despite her name being on the box, something outsiders to the series don't often realise. Yet the connection between Link and Zelda permeates the series.

So, my question is; could the franchise go on without featuring Zelda herself? If the games stopped featuring Zelda for a period of time much like how Ganondorf has gone un-used for a decade, would ceasing appearances from Zelda hinder the franchise or would it simply not matter considering she often-times doesn't always feature within her self-titled games?

 

[Kingwobbly]

Well MM is one of my favourite games and she's on.y in that for about a minute depending of how fast you read, so I think the franchise would be fine without. I don't think they could get rid of Link though unless it were a spin off such as that weird Tingle game.

 

[Dio]

It all depends on the way she is used. Ganon in his pig form never really does anything for the series. Any generic monster would do instead. Having him as some beast doesn't really bring any positives for a character which brings a huge load to games in his human form.

I think the way SS and WW did Zelda were the best in the series. Having her fulfill a different role other than just a princess. I'd like to see the focus move away from rescuing her though, she should be perfectly capable of handling herself.

 

[snakeoiltanker]

yeah i like how she actually was a self sufficient woman in WW, you never really had to save her, and she played a large role in you defeating ganon. And in SS she was your friends not a princess. I dont mind the games that dont have her in it, but i still dont think I would like if she were to be dismissed to never return again.

 

[Djinn]

She was not exactly important in the first or second games in the series. And then sat a few out over the years. She is not exactly necessary for a game and does not need to be much of a focus in a game she appears in majority of the time. I do like how Nintendo has been giving her more of a role in the games anyway.

So for the most part she is little more than a symbol. Along the same lines as the triforce is a logo portraying the series Zelda is a familiar name that people can instantly associate. When she is a character then there is no real set rule in how her character is to be portrayed unlike Link and Ganondorf. She can pretty much be anything from regal monarch, to childhood friend or even somewhat of a rival.

 

[Emmanuel]

I don't think the franchise would survive without her. Zelda is an essential part of the lore that makes the games compelling. I don't think she needs to be an integral part of every entry into the series, but as a bearer of the Triforce and the perpetual reincarnation of the goddess Hylia, it wouldn't make sense to write her out completely without fundamentally changing what the series is all about. That said, I'd really like to see Nintendo do some work in continuing to progress beyond the usual tropes where the storyline forces Zelda's character into playing the damsel in distress. I've always thought, for example, that it would be really fascinating if Nintendo created a game that takes place during the seven years when Link was sealed away with the Master Sword. What if we got to play through Zelda's experience during those years, watch her become a warrior and transform into Sheik as Ganondorf and his armies turn Hyrule into a land of darkness? I think it could be a great spin-off to the events of Ocarina of Time and give us a great deal of insight into Zelda's character.

 

[Salem]

Zelda has ALWAYS been important, even when she supposedly did "nothing", she still was important.