Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The idea that Zelda needs a reboot.
http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/2012/02/02/reset-it%E2%80%99s-time-to-reboot-zelda/
I don't get it. Why does a series that practically reboots itself every other game would need to throw all that out the window and do a full reboot? The only reason any sane man would do a full reboot is if the previous installment was terrible(and Skyward Sword was no Batman and Robin) and needs to restart with a new creative team. Several series have already had some pointless reboots(The next Devil May Cry game and Sonic 2006 come to mind), and they usually end up going back to the original continuity. But Zelda is something that does not need to be rebooted at all. While I do agree with giving the series to Retro Studios, abandoning 25 years of history would be disastrous, to say the very least.
Comments
I'm confused how one would go about resetting Zelda. The games aren't even that tied by continuity. I could see a game bogged down by continuity like Resident Evil (though 5 looks like it's ended that with the death of We- AHAHAHAHAHA I COULDN'T SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE) but every Zelda game is a stand-alone experience.
The value of a Zelda reboot would be in the minds of the fanbase. While it might make no practical difference in terms of the individual plots of the games or the gameplay, it would be an opportunity for Nintendo to illegitimise the current, hoop-jumping narrative theories (three timelines is two too many) and start again with a linear, connected narrative. Or even just start again and claim that they're only loosely connected from the beginning.
In any case, there's absolutely no reason to do this internal to the games itself. Its only purpose would be to realign the perspective of the fanbase, and that's something I'd support.
>it would be an opportunity for Nintendo to illegitimise the current, hoop-jumping narrative theories
bsp;
The reason that Nintendo has been quiet and vague about the timeline is because it's not important. At all. Windwaker's placement in the story is irrelevant to anything in the game whatsoever. If they do a reboot, the batshit theories and wankery will still be around because fandom.
It'd be a purely cosmetic change that would do nothing other than say 'REMEMBER THOSE GAMES YOU LOVED? NEVER HAPPENED!' then five years later, they go back because they did actually happen and were loved.
Windwaker was supposed to be set after OOT and that fact is central to the damm game
I don't find this particularly relevant. No matter what Nintendo says or what fan theories abound, I hold to the interpretation of the Zelda games as legends rather than literal interpretations of actual events. As far as "actual events" applies. Anyone is free to their own interpretations, and no amount of fanbase silliness alters that. But maybe that's me, because those games I loved never happened to my mind anyway.
A lot of the fanbase is hungry for some kind of truly official statement, though. If Nintendo came out with a rebooted timeline or made it clear that they don't hold to any timeline at all, I suspect much of the fanbase would pretty much take that on after the initial outrage.
As for cosmetics, the Zelda games change art style every handful of years anyway. Like I said, a reboot would be in all technical senses irrelevant. But it could also be a force of influence and cut down swathes of fanwank.
Basically, I want people to shut up and enjoy the damned games for what they are.
I agree that people should enjoy the games for what they are but a reboot wouldn't cause any epiphanies. In fact, it would increase the fanwank as fans will try to bridge timelines, argue about which one is 'real', and all sorts of nonsense.
Fans are always going to be idiots and it shouldn't bother you and so long as the games are selling (and they are) Nintendo shouldn't bow to those demands.
Fans are idiots. They don't know what they want, and getting what they think they want isn't going to shut them up.
It would just be nice if one hand wasn't enough to count the amount of people I could talk to about Zelda on a non-literal level is all.
And it'd be nice if I could talk about Spider-man without One More Day always been brought up. If wishes were horses.
I believe I mentioned this last time this came up, but my current opinion is that I wish this were the case. The games would work better that way, but...I don't think that was the intention.
...does it really matter? I mean, really, does your understanding of Zelda and your enjoyment thereof come from the fact that the games are connected? At all?
No, quite the opposite. The fact that the games are connected is a source of endless annoyance to the online fandom.
The fact that there is a timeline, even a branching timeline, puts me at ease, it gives me a sense of order.
Reboots are a stupid technique used by lazy writers.
Saying that, Zelda doesn't HAVE writers and doesn't need a reboot. If they're really determined to break free from what lax continuity Zelda has why not just say "And the, after Wind Waker, there was 1,000 years of peace and nothing of note happened at all".
That's false, there's the direct sequel phantom hourglass and then there's Spirit Tracks
Well then 1,000 years after Spirit Tracks then :P
Even though the series has an official timeline, the way its set up potentially leaves room for literally anything to happen. Therefore a reboot is incredibly pointless when they could just as easily do another timeline branch or something.
What is this.. "timeline" you speak of?
^ Nintendo released an official timeline recently
To everybody's surprise, it was a three way split. The expected Child/Adult one when Link is sent into the past, and one where Link dies in the battle with Ganon in OoT
I really didn't expect the Link death timeline
Well, nobody did. Including it makes no sense except as a clumsy retcon.
Oh, I'm familiar with the timeline concepts. I just choose to ignore it to enjoy each game as a stand alone title.
So, your question was a rhetorical one.
It is indeed time to reboot Zelda.
You know, like it's been rebooted every installment and isn't exactly a new prospect to the series. The series is less an immortal and more a phoenix.
Er...the first installment you could even argue was a reboot was the Oracles.
Nobody ever cared at that point, so it's kinda odd that they didn't just reboot it, but each game before the Oracles had an explicit chronological connection to the previous one.
I guess if you're just talking about continuity, sure, whatever. The very structure of the gameplay has changed just as much as anything else though, so yeah.
Honestly trying to establish more than a rudimentary continuity tracing more than one game previous at a time is kind of silly. The whole timeline split thing basically just came about because someone in charge has a massive hardon for OOT.
Nah, that's not what I think happened. What I think happened is that after OOT and MM, they realized that nobody gave a shit about the timeline, so they stopped bothering with continuity and just made games. And then people suddenly started caring about the timeline, and by that point the double timeline was the only way to explain everything that made sense. But when it came time to reveal it, it wouldn't generate nearly as much press to go "yeah, you guys were right," so they made it a triple timeline.
I'm willing to run with that too.
People get too worked up over wanking to continuity in a series that generally makes an effort to compartmentalize its installments in relative vacuum and not lock itself into anything.
Didn't it already get one...?
Heh. That game should have been awful, but it's like it forgot to suck.