The C-E staff give their views on gaming's most important issues.

The continuing proliferation of the Zelda franchise has managed to upset a lot of Nintendo fans, and it continues with tomorrow's Zelda: Four Swords (well, in Europe here anyway). Whoring off Mario to every genre under the sun is perfectly fine, given that he is, essentially, the spokesperson for Nintendo, and the embodiment of their family-friendly, fun-orientated nature. But the Zelda franchise...surely that's a whole different league of series?

Is the proliferation of the Zelda franchise (Four Swords, Capcom's games etc.) degrading Ninty's most sacred asset, or using it to its full potential?

Justin:

Well, in this case, I think it is simply making use of old games, and adding new ideas. It seems to me that they might be focusing on the Four Swords series a little to much, but that is likely because it is a lot easier. It is also a good way to use the connectivity options. I think they should focus a little more on the 'regular' Zelda series, and a little less on Four Swords.

Dennis:

Actually, no I don't think so. The Zelda series might be considered sacred, but what's the use of a nice brand if you can't use it to create new games from?

As long as Nintendo manages to keep the generic Zelda feel and don't fall back on using the same boss-strategies (which they've recently proven to me with The Minish Cap), I don't see a problem really. I do have to admit that when I first saw The Four Swords (and that Tetra Trackers), that I was doubting whether a game like that would work out on the GameCube.

I think the reactions on the E3 2004 trailer of the next Zelda pretty much showed the liveliness still among the gamers.

Pesten:

Anyhow. To answer your question; mmm.. maybe. Let's look at the good and bad sides of the craziness.

Positive:
-Making more games
-Adding new type of fun to an old franchise (Four Swords)
-Giving filthy, Zelda-thirsting, animals something to play with between the hotshots.

Negative:
-Using the name (Zelda) on worse games (than the already mentioned hotshots)
-Losing focus on the main games
-Using too much time and effort which maybe could have been better used with other games

That's about all my greasy brain could figure out for now. So...to the conclusion. There is nothing wrong with these types of games, since we get something to shorten the wait for the next great adventure; but that could have been shortened with those games even if it wasn't named 'Zelda something'. It seems to me like Nintendo is using that big and well established franchise to sell games that really don't have too much to do with it. This could again weaken the impressions of Zelda being the great series of games that it is, because too much focus is given to these lesser games.

Lammie:

I sort of see the spin off titles as something to keep you busy until the next big Zelda title comes out. With that said, I haven't actually played The Minish Cap or any of those other recent Zelda titles. The last three Zelda games I've played are Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask and The Wind Waker. Mainly because every other recent release (except for Four Swords) has been on the Gameboy and haven't really grabbed my attention. Four Swords might be good but I don't have three other mates to play with (Hmmm...that made me sound like a raging loner - I'm not....honest) so I'm not incredibly keen on playing that.

I'm playing The Wind Waker through for about the fourth time so that's keeping me well busy until the next Gamecube installment comes along.

Personally I haven't been all that excited over the smaller Zelda releases but as long as they aren't utter pap I don't think they are degrading the title. Besides, something has to keep the Zelda franchise flowing while Miyamoto spends five bloody years between each major masterpiece.

Wouter:

I'd say it isn't degrading at all, for one simple reason: I haven't played a Zelda game that I didn't like yet. Nintendo and now also Capcom have found the perfect recipe for good Zelda games, they always have a nice balance of returning elements and new ideas. To call Minish Cap and Four Swords spin-offs doesn't do them justice, they're quite complete Zelda adventures on their own.

If Link would start to pop up in games with kart racing, tennis, golf or other non-Zelda events you could argue he's lost his way, but for now I think Nintendo is doing a great job of keeping its most sacred asset sacred.

Iun:

Do you therefore mean that the Zelda series is becoming unimportant for Nintendo? In the face of the response to the new GC Zelda at E3, that would be an erroneous statement. The Minish Cap sold well, and so did The Wind Waker.

However, if what you wish to argue that the USE of peripheral equipment in the Zelda games is detracting from the gameplay in the games - frankly I would have to say no.

The use of the GBA as a map/bomb detonator was an amusing distraction for a while, and it never seemed that it was done at the expense of the main game.

As for The Minish Cap... well, farming out the Oracle of Ages/Seasons were good ideas as the series received a fresh twist from the new developer that kept the series on an even keel and prevented it from becoming sterile.

As for the Four Swords... I'm greeting it with some scepticism. I think any game that relies on an expensive secondary purchase (i.e. a GBA) risks splitting the userbase of a console into the "haves" and "have nots". It's like an 'Expansion Pack' that is required to play certain games, or a bolt-on piece of hardware that plays a new type of game.

If these extensions to the console are too expensive and not in ready demand, then it is very difficult to persuade anyone other than the 'core gamer to buy.

Conor:

It's definitely hard to get used to the proliferation of the Zelda franchise, given the high regard we all hold it in. Each new title used to be a videogame 'event', a look at how Nintendo were progressing in their use of gaming technology and understanding of gaming design. Now that has been dilluted with Nintendo's looser attitude towards the series, but I still think this new way of doing things has its merits.

We have to accept that just as the Mario series is an ambassador for Nintendo's new ideas, so too can the Zelda one. And since it's fans' most revered Nintendo IP probably, they're not going to mess about with it. Seriously, Nintendo aren't stupid. Capcom showed tremendously competency with the Oracle games (even if they did lack the Nintendo charm, an expected absence really). Four Swords is a fun game, GBAs or not. Even playtests of the much-detested Tetra's Trackers were encouraging, a fact the haters predictably ignored.

As long as Nintendo don't go off on an insane bender with the series one day, I think any proliferation of the Zelda franchise can be happily tolerated.

What do you guys think? Is this looser attitude towards the franchise unfavourable, or are we just getting more good games because of it?