General Zelda How Would You Feel About a Cliffhanger Ending?

[Justac00lguy]

Purely hypothetical question for the sake of speaking discussion and talking about something that's rather foreign in the series and that is a Cliffhanger Ending.

I guess we all know what to expect from a typical Zelda game and it's story as it's rather cliché: Princess gets kidnapped by villain, hero defeats villain, saves the kingdom and Princess. Of course that's a rather brief look and not every title follows that specifc path, but I would say it's the case most of the time. Anyway, we know that the majority endings will give complete closure and it will be all smiles; however what if we were to get a cliffhanger of sorts to completely throw the player off guard and set up for a highly anticipated sequel (which is something that Nintendo rarely does).

Probably a big reason we haven't seen such an ending is because Zelda isn't exactly progression and continuity based - we instead get a completely new game and setting, a new legend so to say. Due to this, the series doesn't really have to set up for a sequel because it's likely that they'll just revisit a completely new time with a completely different setting and a completely new hero. Even though this so what Nintendo generally does, I feel they are slowly altering their ways to create some continuity between their games: ST and PH were sequels to a recent Gamecube title, Skyward Sword was dubbed the "series' prequel", and A Link Between Worlds set out to tell the events after one of the series' most famous titles, A Link to the Past. So given this slight shift, I don't think it's too much of a stretch.

So onto the question, how would you feel about this type of ending and do you think it would work?

 

[g-whiz]

Maybe but probably not.

Remember how TP took a bunch of crap for being too much of a sequel to OoT? Having a cliffhanger would require the next game to be an actual sequel. Same Link, same Zelda, same-ok it's pretty much always the same Ganondorf, same monsters, same story etc... There wouldn't be much room for innovation or much difference between the games and THAT is where TP failed for a lot of people.

 

[Ganondork]

Having a cliffhanger would require the next game to be an actual sequel. Same Link, same Zelda, same-ok it's pretty much always the same Ganondorf, same monsters, same story etc...

Link's Awakening is one of four sequels to A Link to the Past (the Oracle Series and A Link Between Worlds being the others), yet they are very different. They don't have to make it exactly like the game before it in order for it to be a sequel. Ganondorf doesn't even need to be in it. The sky is still the limit, but they just have a defined Link to work with. In many ways that is good because they don't need a long exposition like they do other games, and can therefore get to the action quicker.

 

[g-whiz]

I'm not saying it can't be done. Look at OoT/MM

What I'm saying is that a cliffhanger would practically require a continuation of the same story and TP was criticized for being too similar to OoT.

For example:

Big Bad is after Zelda to get the Trifoce, Link is trying to stop him/her/it. At the end the cliffhanger has the big bad kidnapping Zelda, Impa is down (dead/unconscious who knows?), Link runs in just as the Big Bad is leaving with Zelda and can't do jack to stop it. The next game has to pick up where that leaves off and continue that story. Additionally, the next game has to connect, story wise, with the first one without being repetitive. You don't want to redo dungeons you did in the first one but you don't want to start at square one either so some characters should recognize you and you should be able to transfer save data so you have all of your items and hearts and such.

I think it could be done but it would be tough. What would make it especially tough is the reaction that some people had to TP. That reaction might be mitigated though if we KNEW it was a sequel from day one though.

 

[Dragoncat]

I wouldn't mind it at all.

 

[Mercedes]

Something they should do I think. Zelda isn't a franchise that's going away, so the lack of any real, deep on-going stories is a missed opportunity imo. Not that a cliffhanger ending would make the rather dull stories any better, but, the word I always think of with Zelda is 'epic'. The stories which span multiple games I always really like, seems that bit more epic.

 

[Salem]

I assume by cliffhanger ending you mean something like the final boss is not really dead, or the final scene involves the villain like stabbing Link and the game ends or something.

I don't expect Nintendo to ever do this, see they always develop each game to be stand along in terms of story, even game that are clearly connected to other games like MM to OoT, or the Oracle games even to some extent, each story is complete in itself.

The way I see this ever happening is kind of the reverse, what I mean is, Nintendo might the two Zelda games for the the Wii U to be connected by story, the first one to be stand alone, while the second game might depend on the first game, as in it involves the same Link as the first one, it might involve some unresolved mysteries from the first one. Actually this is kinda like how Zelda II and MM are.

 

[Ocarina_Player]

Maybe but probably not.

Remember how TP took a bunch of crap for being too much of a sequel to OoT? Having a cliffhanger would require the next game to be an actual sequel. Same Link, same Zelda, same-ok it's pretty much always the same Ganondorf, same monsters, same story etc... There wouldn't be much room for innovation or much difference between the games and THAT is where TP failed for a lot of people.

It took so much crap because they shoehorned it into being a sequel. \ It wasn't so much a sequel as the same game rehashed. If they make two games that were meant to tie into each other, they shouldn't have that problem.


I've written before about what a two part or even a three part Zelda game would seem like. I think it would be cool because it would allow for a more developed and dramatic story line. They can even have Link grow up between the games, so we get child and adult Link.

 

[A Link In Time]

If this happened I can imagine a lot of people initially irritated over a "cash grab" by Nintendo, but after a while, I'm sure most people would recognize it as a unique, refreshing idea adding an element of unpredictably to the overused happy ending.

A two part story would go a long way in solving some of the franchise's recent pacing issues. Recent games have featured more laborious tutorials to accustom new players to the series. Unfortunately, these sequences are tedious for veterans. Having this removed from the second game since all the mechanics were explained in the first would make for a more fast-paced experience like A Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time.

 

[Ocarina_Player]

Or maybe they could just make it so the tutorials are completely optional, that would be spectacular.

As or the cash grab, Nintendo can have all of my money, so long as they make the games completely epic and don't make me wait too long between releases.

 

[Azure Sage]

It really depends on how it's handled. Personally, I'd feel dissatisfied if the game's plot didn't get wrapped up throughout the duration of the game; the game would feel incomplete. But maybe something after the credit roll, something small enough to not make the game's plot feel unfinished but big enough to make you go "Wow, what just happened?", so as to set up for a direct sequel. I would prefer that kind of cliffhanger.

 

[ihateghirahim]

If this could be joined with a deeper story and two main series Zelda games that go together, it would be epic. A zelda with an epic and deep story. What about items, combat, and a world that grew from one game to another? What if the second game extended the story and ideas of the first one? Bring it on Nintendo! Zelda U 1 and 2. It could be a great gamechanger for the franchise we all love.

 

[Link and Zelda]

I would really like it. Zelda is very well known as a series that has a lot of innovation in every game. But as someone said before, Nintendo can make a sequel with a lot of innovation. (Link's awakening, Oracle series) I think a lot of people underestimate Nintendo and the team of Zelda. Or maybe it's just worry. I think having a cliffhanger would be really cool. It will make me even more excited for the next game. I think having a story of 2 games would be ok. With more people would just get pissed of. Some people don't like a cliffhanger. I understand. Especially with a series that makes one game every 2 or 3 years. It's a long wait. But I can wait. Good idea! especially since Zelda has never done a real cliffhanger.

 

[Link12]

It could work!!

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

as long as they follow through and actually make a sequel to the game instead of starting over w/ some other stuff again for the following title,im good