General Zelda Is It Time to Lay the Master Sword to Rest?

[Justac00lguy]

The Master Sword, one of the most influential weapons and powers in the mythology and the whole series of the Legend of Zelda. If we include the brief appearance within the Oracle games then it has appeared in seven Zelda games, nearing half of the entire series. It's obviously an iconic sword now, the design, the quest to obtain and even the music when we first draw the blade... It has become in ways, a tradition and in the last three main console releases it has had a very important role to the main story, especially within Skyward Sword.

However is it time to actually lay it to rest, let it become a legend so to say? Obviously it sounds like a stupid decision since the series has put so much emphasis on it, especially as of late but I want something new! We already know the role of the Master Sword, now we oliver know it's routes, so is it time to move on and maybe let a new weapon/item take over and bring something new to the lore of the series? Maybe it could be one of the many swords the series has introduced, maybe even something different other than a sword, or how about a completely new sword/weapon being introduced...

Tell me your thoughts, do you think it's time to leave the Master Sword out of the main item of the series and let something new takeover? Or would you like to it as a stable feature?

 

[Azure Sage]

Personally, I wouldn't mind either way. I think of the Master Sword in the same sense as I do Ganondorf; it isn't necessary to have a good Zelda game. The series has had lots of other cool swords, particularly (in my opinion) the Lokomo Sword, my favorite sword in the whole series. Phantom Hourglass had the Phantom Sword as well, further supporting that it isn't necessary to have the Master Sword. Another legendary sword can just as easily serve the same purpose. That said, I wouldn't mind if the Master Sword returned or not. I always like new things, but I'm still indifferent to the subject.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

I do agree that the Master Sword may be a little overused now. However, it's still a staple of the series, just like Ganon. If Ganon's not gone forever, then I don't think the Master Sword will be either. That being said, what if Ganon did not return? We could still use the Master Sword. Remember that the legendary blade contains the spirits of Fi and Demise. Since Demise is the Demon King, ruler of all evil, then I don't think he'll ever be gone forever. If he is based on the devil, then evil would no longer reign if Demise was gone. If the sword was destroyed, Demise's spirit would be destroyed, meaning all evil in the world would perish. We don't need to see the Master Sword anymore for it to exist, though. It still exists in all three timelines, it just hasn't been used since TP, ALTTP, or TWW. So, to make a long story short: Keep the Master Sword alive even if it doesn't actually appear in game.

 

[JuicieJ]

For Zelda 3DS, I think the Master Sword should be put aside. I suspect Ganondorf is going to return as a solo villain in Zelda Wii U, so the Master Sword would be all but necessary to defeat him. But for Zelda 3DS, I don't expect to see Ganondorf at all. Plus, I'd rather the Master Sword be absent from Zelda 3DS to make it that much more meaningful in Zelda Wii U.

 

[Random Person]

Laying it to rest? I say thee nay! Though I am for making it appear less in the series.

I agree that the sword should be Legendary. Not that weapon that appears in every game. I want to see the Master Sword and feel like I've come across that sword. I think OoT, WW and TP did a decent job of making the player feel that. In all three games, you went a good length of the game with out the sword and when you finally got it, it was very important to both story and gameplay, though not so much gameplay in WW. OoT aloud Link to be an adult and TP aloud for Link to change back and forth to a wolf. Not to mention, the upgrade in power. The problem is, with so many 3D games incorporating it, the sword has lost its merit. SS was the game that would tell exactly how this epic sword became so epic, but a good many of the fans agree it wasn't too satisfying. Also the game gives you a version of the sword at the beginning of the game, not really making you feel like you were away from it. Because SS is a quest to save Zelda while just upgrading the sword along the way, it made it less significant at that moment where you finally got the Master Sword.

Another thing that is dumbing down the significance of the Master Sword is the more powerful swords that come with it. "You got the Master Sword... but it has to be upgraded to the Golden Sword." "You got the Master Sword... but the biggoron sword does more damage." "You got the Master Sword... but it needs to have light infused in it." "You got the Master Sword... but it's not the TRUE Master Sword." When these constant messages of "your sword can be better" continually pops up, the sword no longer becomes that sword.

I think the main problem is its association with the 3D games. The sword has appeared in about half the games of the series, but it's appeared in 4/5 of the main console 3D games which are much more vivid to look at in terms of effecting the series. People tend not to look at games like MC and ST and say they ruined the series, but they will do that with TP or SS. It wouldn't seem as bad if the handheld and 2D games felt as significant as the 3D games.

I've rambled more than I wanted to, but I do agree that the series needs a break from the sword. With it appearing in so many games, and the degrading feel of its actual origin, appreciation of the Master Sword feels dimmed. Of course, getting rid of the Master Sword for a time is but one way to increase it's meaning. There are other ways to do that while still implementing it in future games. I just think taking a break is a good idea.

 

[Dio]

The master sword is required to defeat Ganondorf/Demise. Unless Ganondorf/Demise is the villain of whatever title then they should come up with new weapons, reserving the MS for when it is truly needed.

 

[JuicieJ]

I think OoT, WW and TP did a decent job of making the player feel that. In all three games, you went a good length of the game with out the sword and when you finally got it, it was very important

I can't say I agree. There's little to no buildup to the Blade of Evil's Bane in any of these games. The only Zelda game to even remotely build up to it is Skyward Sword, which, even though light, provides more anticipation.

 

[Justac00lguy]

The master sword is required to defeat Ganondorf/Demise. Unless Ganondorf/Demise is the villain of whatever title then they should come up with new weapons, reserving the MS for when it is truly needed.

The Master Sword isn't the only weapon capable of defeating Ganaondorf... There are actually 2 other weapons within the series that have actually been used to either seal or ultimately kill the Demon King, that being the Silver Arrow from the original Legend of Zelda and the Four Sword from Four Sword Adventures. Since the fact that 2 weapons can also achieve this feat then why can't they be reused and who is to day that Zelda can't bring in new weapons that rival the power of the Master Sword.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

Well, like I said above, the Master Sword contains the source of all evil. We could use other items to defeat Ganondorf, so long as they at least keep the Master Sword in existence. We don't absoluetly need to use it for it to exist. Because Demise's spirit is sealed inside, there will be evil in the land as long as the sword still exists.

 

[Yuki Cross]

I, personally, think that the Master Sword is a big part of Zelda, and although I wouldn't be devastated, I would still like it to be present in future games. I'm not going to say that Zelda wouldn't be Zelda without the Master Sword - because it would still be a valid Zelda game - but, like I said, it's a big part of the series, and it just wouldn't feel right if it weren't there.

 

[HylianHero]

For Zelda 3DS, I think the Master Sword should be put aside. I suspect Ganondorf is going to return as a solo villain in Zelda Wii U, so the Master Sword would be all but necessary to defeat him. But for Zelda 3DS, I don't expect to see Ganondorf at all. Plus, I'd rather the Master Sword be absent from Zelda 3DS to make it that much more meaningful in Zelda Wii U.

This nails my opinion.

 

[SpiritGerudo]

As many people here stated, I think the Master Sword is inevitably linked with Ganon. Without Ganon, there's no need for the Master Sword, and without the Master Sword, you can't defeat Ganon so he isn't in the game in the first place. This makes it seem like without the Master Sword, we lose the series's main villain and then it just seems like a side game (at least to me). However, I do think it's time to let the Master Sword fade into Legend (at least for a little while ). As aforementioned by other people, there are ways of killing Ganon other than the Master Sword. The Silver/light Arrows, specifically, I think could be brought back.

The thing is, though, I really don't want something to just replace the Master Sword. For something to serve the exact same role, and just be a different item that completely erases the Master Sword from memory but does the same thing I think would be horrible. The Master Sword should be there, just not as part of the game, much like the Hero of Time is in The Wind Waker . . . a legend. The Silver/Light Arrows can't be the Master Sword by another name, they have to be the Silver/Light Arrows, while ultimately the Hero defeats the villain by his own hand, with his own sword, should Nintendo choose to leave the Master Sword a memory but still keep Ganon.

 

[RedLink]

The thing is, though, I really don't want something to just replace the Master Sword. For something to serve the exact same role, and just be a different item that completely erases the Master Sword from memory but does the same thing I think would be horrible. The Master Sword should be there, just not as part of the game, much like the Hero of Time is in The Wind Waker . . . a legend. The Silver/Light Arrows can't be the Master Sword by another name, they have to be the Silver/Light Arrows, while ultimately the Hero defeats the villain by his own hand, with his own sword, should Nintendo choose to leave the Master Sword a memory but still keep Ganon.

Agreed, replacing the Master Sword with another sword just turns the whole idea into a catch-22. It is like when they replaced the Armor of Altair with the Armor of Brutus in ACB.

I know I have not really gotten into The Legend of Zelda series yet, so my word here may be weak, but if you are going to retire the Master Sword, why not make it and Ganondorf a package deal? I understand this whole cycle of battling Ganondorf to save Zelda is the basis of the series, but why not have one console game that deviates from this formula by introducing a new villain?

 

[SpiritGerudo]

I know I have not really gotten into The Legend of Zelda series yet, so my word here may be weak, but if you are going to retire the Master Sword, why not make it and Ganondorf a package deal? I understand this whole cycle of battling Ganondorf to save Zelda is the basis of the series, but why not have one console game that deviates from this formula by introducing a new villain?

Agreed; I think a new villain on a major console title would be good, Nintendo shouldn't feel like they have to stick to save-the-princess ALL the time for console games. Also, please no more partial-villains, where you battle one guy for most of the game only for the REAL villain to be different. We've have Zant, which I don't think was done well at all, and Ghirahim, which I think was done spectacularly, and I think it's time for the main villain to be the MAIN villain again.

 

[xkillinuguyx]

NO, NEVER.