Bear with me for a moment. I can already hear people typing N-O, but give me a moment.
I'd like to draw attention to the Assassin's Creed games. For the first six eight or so entries in that series, the games centered on a specific style of character: a hooded edgerunner with a penchant for shopping at Hot Topic and stabbing people in the throat. There was a certain formula to how the characters were designed and portrayed. Everyone adhered to the titular "assassin's creed".
Then Assassin's Creed: Odyssey came out. Despite its plot connecting directly with other games and its characters all being connected to the franchise's usual assassins, it doesn't follow the specific formula that its precursors did. Assassins and templars are present, as is the usual plot about order and chaos and stabbing people in the neck, but there was a degree of discontentment among a few fans. Some decried this alleged shift from the series' formula as the markings of a new, unrelated game. There were some who suggested that it should have been named something else. "Warrior's Creed" or whatnot.
To bring it back around to Zelda:
Despite the series' name, The Legend of Zelda is rarely a legendary tale about Zelda. Though she was somewhat more prominent in the instructional manuals of the first two Zelda games, she's never actually been a main characterexcept in Spirit Tracks, I know. It's been a series almost exclusively about Link and Link alone, with Zelda serving serving either as set dressing or a secondary character.
We've seen a degree of rebranding in the Hyrule Warriors games. Despite being part of the same series, they've opted to distinguish themselves. Would the rest of Zelda of Zelda benefit from rolling with more distinct titles while operating under a larger Zelda umbrella?
I'd like to draw attention to the Assassin's Creed games. For the first six eight or so entries in that series, the games centered on a specific style of character: a hooded edgerunner with a penchant for shopping at Hot Topic and stabbing people in the throat. There was a certain formula to how the characters were designed and portrayed. Everyone adhered to the titular "assassin's creed".
Then Assassin's Creed: Odyssey came out. Despite its plot connecting directly with other games and its characters all being connected to the franchise's usual assassins, it doesn't follow the specific formula that its precursors did. Assassins and templars are present, as is the usual plot about order and chaos and stabbing people in the neck, but there was a degree of discontentment among a few fans. Some decried this alleged shift from the series' formula as the markings of a new, unrelated game. There were some who suggested that it should have been named something else. "Warrior's Creed" or whatnot.
To bring it back around to Zelda:
Despite the series' name, The Legend of Zelda is rarely a legendary tale about Zelda. Though she was somewhat more prominent in the instructional manuals of the first two Zelda games, she's never actually been a main character
We've seen a degree of rebranding in the Hyrule Warriors games. Despite being part of the same series, they've opted to distinguish themselves. Would the rest of Zelda of Zelda benefit from rolling with more distinct titles while operating under a larger Zelda umbrella?