Should Zelda games be more directly intertwined or still be self contained?

[mαrkαsscoρ]

Typically when there's a new non-direct sequel Zelda game that comes out, it's a self contained story w/ a new Link so that if players start there as their first Zelda, they won't feel like they're missing another part to the story that came before. Even if they are sequels, past events are mostly loosely referenced and aren't completely necessary.
Do you guys think this works fine for the series still? Or do you think they should be more directly tied so it feels like an ongoing narrative?

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

My opinion is probably pretty well known, but they should be more interconnected.

At this point, Zelda games only put on airs of being interconnected. One cutscene in one game will loosely reference another game (the speech from Breath of the Wild that mentions time, wind, and Twilight), but no effort will be made to form actual connections. There's never a sense that Zelda takes place in a breathing, progressing world. Without worldbuilding, Hyrule feels like a fishbowl outside of which no time and no other countries exist.

I'd kind of compare it to my stance on Link being a "player avatar". If he is a player avatar, then drop the pretense that he's a character and allow character customization. There's nothing wrong with Zelda games being standalone, but the series would need to drop the pretense that there's continuity. Just roll like Final Fantasy does: almost every game exists in its own universe. The only connections are the names of the summons.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

personally I'd just want them to drop the whole 'new Link, new story' formula and just give us direct sequels from now on, so I guess technically I'm in the interconnected camp
unfortunately, them giving Botw that idiotically long time gap for a backstory says to me that they're doubling down on having Zelda games be as isolated as they can be from each other, direct sequels aside

 

[thePlinko]

Interconnected, for sure.

For a time there they were actually doing a pretty good job with it too. Nearly every game from OoT onward actually felt like it related to a previous entry quite directly, with the entirety of the Adult timeline being a perfect example.
The only ones that do a poor job in that timeframe are, surprise surprise, the ones that were developed by Capcom. I’m not sure if they had any say on the story aspect, but given how I don’t think they did a particularly good job on the rest of the games, I wouldn’t be surprised if that major disconnect stemmed from them. Even TP, as shoehorned as nearly every plot element is, makes it abundantly clear that it’s plot is an evolution of the child portion of OoT.



Then you get to BotW, where they throw all plot consistency out the window. The franchise effectively had 3 separate story’s going on, each had some sort of world progression and an actual effort put in making the world of Hyrule seem dynamic, but the 10000 year gap just kinda renders all of it pointless. To be fair I think that TFH already felt completely disconnected from it’s own predecessor despite being a direct sequel, but that’s just a tiny little multiplayer game that nobody ever talks about. Outside of a few vague references, the only time BotW specifically relates itself to a previous title is when Fi kinda sorta shows up and becomes a minor plot point in both Link and Zeldas arc.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

I'd like it to be a pretty even split of new games with rough timeline connections (like oot and SS) and sequel games with exact timeline connections (like MM or ST)

 

[GZ Zelda]

300th post yay.

They definitely should be interconnected, but they kind of already are.

There are some known and integral connections: SS at the beginning, MC-FS-FSA (this is disconnected in the official timeline, thus making the official timeline borderline unusable in my mind), OoT-MM, WW-PH-ST, ALttP-OoA-OoS-LA-ALBW-TFH, Z1-Z2, TP, BotW.

If you want greater connection between these games, that's reasonable (and I tend to agree). How does the Four Sword saga relate to anything? It really doesn't and that's a flaw. How does Twilight Princess relate to anything from Ocarina of Time? It really doesn't at all. They've had 37 years to expand on the backstory of Zelda 1 and they have not at all.

I personally think that a linear timeline with a single Ganon allows for greater out-of-canon connectivity than anything provided from the games themselves because it unites all these disparate reincarnations around one eternally resurrecting and tragic figure, and BotW2 provides an opportunity to canonize this experience by taking the mummified Ganondorf and directly referencing his past experiences, but they probably won't do that.

 

[Fraxinus]

A lot of series I play (outside of Zelda) are sort of self-contained but follow the same universe laws and such and I think it gives more wiggle room to make a setting with its own lore that can then interconnect to other games more broadly, without overstepping or inadvertently contradicting or retconning something in a previous game. Which I like and think it's a great approach.

One problem though. This is usually handled by moving the setting. Pokemon introduces new regions, for instance. Since most Zelda games are set in Hyrule and the extent of Hyrule is shown each game, the limits of the world of Hyrule is kind of confined. We know the major regions already, and every time they redefine Hyrule, it looses the interconnection between titles. Because its the same Hyrule, there is going to be some level of expectation that events in Hyrule history should be consistent and stuff that occurred in previous games be implied to have taken place in the kingdom you're trying to save. Nintendo kind of backed themselves into a corner perhaps.

A spontaneous and experimental thought I just had while writing this, but perhaps for more interconnected games in the future, they could do games that focus on specific regions within Hyrule. I've seen complaints of Breath of the Wild being too big (and empty), and imagine if instead of blowing up the whole map, they focused on different parts of the map and fleshed that out for the overworld for that specific game. We could maybe get more cultural involvement and significance from the tribes of Hyrule too. Instead of retelling Hylia and Triforce lore over and over and changing it slightly, maybe look at lore unique to a region within Hyrule. Then there's a mild self containing aspect while the whole tjing could connect to another game that takes this same approach and maybe pan over the map in a slightly different region. I guess like the Zelda I/Zelda II map relation, but more in depth. Dunno how plot would work or how that'd be received but just an idea for how to reintroduce organic self-containment to a game that implies the same kingdom, landmarks and history over and over.

 

[Dio]

There are games in the series which are fairly well connected but many others which the connection seems like an afterthought.

Almost all Zelda games are set in Hyrule so it would make more sense if games connected and were part of a cohesive narrative even if it spans thousands of years. This means fleshing out lore and sticking to and expanding on it rather than chopping and changing every other title.

I'd actually really enjoy a Zelda story spanning three games like the Mass Effect trilogy though I don't think every title should have to be like this, some can be one offs set in different eras of Hyrule but referencing the events in other games as necessary.

 

[Chevywolf30]

Intertwined, but loosely. Not every game has to be a direct sequel, but stuff like WW and TP where it's abundantly clear that they come after OoT are good and make it feel like a connected universe. BotW doesn't feel that way unless you count the one line about time, the sky, twilight and all that jazz, and that just feels shoehorned in for fanservice and not everyone's gonna even see it.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

Intertwined, but loosely. Not every game has to be a direct sequel, but stuff like WW and TP where it's abundantly clear that they come after OoT are good and make it feel like a connected universe. BotW doesn't feel that way unless you count the one line about time, the sky, twilight and all that jazz, and that just feels shoehorned in for fanservice and not everyone's gonna even see it.

so....stand alone then

 

[Uwu_Oocoo2]

I would love to see a more interconnected Zelda, for sure. The way it is now with the timeline being what it is, the games are connected. But it almost feels like every game is referencing others without there being any real relevancy. They're explaining why things in other games make sense but it doesn't affect the game you're actually playing atm. They all have have the same atmosphere and formula making it clear they are one franchise but when it comes to the actual story, it's all over the place. Not having them all intertwined is actually really harmful to the plot of the series in the sense that there is no plot to the series. Each game is its own adventure with a similar theme, but it's never the same characters or story. It's just side notes. That also means that that one adventure is as deep as you go with the plot, making it hard to get good narratives. For characters that get carried over like Ganondorf I mean yeah, he's in another game, but are we learning more about him? If it's wind waker, yes. Wind waker makes for an excellent sequel and example of what Ninty SHOULD be doing. But any other time we see him his story has already been told, now he's the the generic "evil" we must defeat. I would love to see character development. I would love to see overarching stories and plot twists. But slapping the "reboot" button at the end of every game makes it really hard to do that.

 

[Farore's Chosen]

I'd say they're fine as they are. A lot of them have references, winks, and nods for eagle eyed players, some are already sequels and sister games.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I'd say they're fine as they are. A lot of them have references, winks, and nods for eagle eyed players, some are already sequels and sister games.

But is that enough to really be in the same series? References and nods are things that game franchises do to other games. Sequels allegedly set in the same universe are usually a bit more direct.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

But is that enough to really be in the same series? References and nods are things that game franchises do to other games. Sequels allegedly set in the same universe are usually a bit more direct.

heck you mentioned Final Fantasy the other day, those stories have as little to do w/ each other as possible but it's the same series

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

heck you mentioned Final Fantasy the other day, those stories have as little to do w/ each other as possible but it's the same series

Yeah, but none of the numbered Final Fantasy games purport to be part of a single continuity. They are openly standalone, whereas Zelda claims to be one continuity.