A Treatise Of The Zelda Fanbase Using Individuality & Perspective

The following is a guest article written by Theron of the Zelda Informer forums. If you’d like to write your own guest article, we encourage you to send us your work here.

The Legend of Zelda – take a moment to reflect upon what that title means to you. The very arrangement of those four words means something different to everyone. A mention of the single word “Zelda” alone will surely conjure up images of the heroic protagonist clad in green brandishing a sword. Perhaps it brings out the inner adventurer within us? In such a modern time in the vast history of our own world we are compelled to strive for something more, to charter the unknown and achieve a higher appreciation for what we live for; our hopes, our dreams, our intellectual understanding of the world. The Legend of Zelda gives each individual person the ability to explore a fictitious universe that not only pays homage to the elements that dominate classical fantasy, but gives the individual the chance to be a part of something extraordinary. Though it is virtual in nature and merely a concept brought to life by a graphicsengine, soundtrack and enhanced by wielding a controller, there are plenty of memorable characteristics that remain ingrained in the minds of those who play it.

As a series, The Legend of Zelda has forged its own path to greatness and to impeccable acclaim in the annals of video game history. Critics oftentimes award the titles near perfect scores [As, 10s, etc.] and praise its standing as a long running franchise that has become synonymous with its equally legendary creator and strong fan base. So why is it that there can never be a “perfect” Zelda title in the community that meets the expectations of all?

In order to generate a cohesive argument that can be understood or at least portrayed in a reasoning manner, it is important to understand a couple of words considered to be very important that were chosen when presenting this article. Individual is the first word being deemed of importance, which also applies to the various forms of individual – individuality, individualism, etc. The second word, perspective, is also imperative in conjunction with this topic, as are perceive and perception as related words. To understand how these two words in this article will be used to reach a conclusion, take a moment to look into the basic definition of each respective word as well as how they tie in directly with the content of this article in critiquing the fan base of The Legend of Zelda.

When opening any dictionary to the definition of individual you will find that it can be used as an adjective and noun. If being used as an adjective, individual may be used to describe something – a trait or specific point which can be referred to as being a single entity, such as the ‘individual’ consciousness of a human being. In this case, it is singular and offered as something separate from a ‘collective’, or group. To expand on this observation, the word individual can be used to describe something as being entirely unique or distinct to a particular object, such as the flavor of ice cream – chocolate has an individual flavor that is different from vanilla, which in turn sets both apart from the collective (group) of ice cream flavors as a whole. This example now leads us into the option of using individual in the form of a noun. When used in referencing something that is one part of a set or group, it is considered individual – a single human out of the entire human race, a single flower from a plant, a single title from The Legend of Zelda series – that is considered apart from the overarching collective. In this case we are purposely separating one minute detail that is inherently exclusive from the remainder.

Perspective is primarily seen to be a noun. In common definition perspective can simply be defined as a view, or a vista. It is an outlook, often being formulated by the assembling of information or establishing a preference that contributes to a mental view point. To use a sentence example: “It is important to look to the past in order to gain a perspective on the present,” – meaning that the person who made this statement has gained knowledge or has formed some sort of conclusion based upon or due to past events to make a judgment on future events. Perspective can also be used when focusing on specific aspects of an object or subject for comparison, an important idea to highlight and one that will serve as a cornerstone for the argument about to be presented.

Since its creation in 1986, The Legend of Zelda series has proceeded to captivate millions of fans of all ages for the past three decades, some of which stretch back to the dawn of the first game. In the midst of the 1980s, the video game industry experienced a boom of excitement surrounding the advent of arcades and the addition of a home console system, leaving behind the frail and bleak outlook the culture had at the beginning of the decade following the collapse of Atari’s hardware. At the time of the release of the first title, there had been no other arcade or console game that solidified the concept of a fantasy in which you are a hero who explores an open world whilst collecting treasures, savinga princess and fighting evil. Now before the introduction of The Legend of Zelda there was another title that in a sense gave birth to this design – Adventure. Adventure is commonly examined as being the template for which all further exploration games followed. Though it is primitive in its nature and possesses no concrete story or reputable elements that make it a memorable title like the first installment of Zelda, it is the idea which grants it that notion of being meaningful – the perception that you are actually on an adventure; to traverse a virtual landscape. Any dedicated Zelda fan knows that as a young boy, Shigeru Miyamoto took it upon himself to explore around his home and to seek out things unexpected or exciting to him. This is common amongst children; think back to when you were a child – you loved adventures, didn’t you? Thanks to the arrival of newer technologiesand a large thanks to the genius imagination that Miyamoto thought up based off of his childhood experiences, we were given The Legend of Zelda. As a template, Adventure offered the idea of exploration – moving across a virtual plane to travel for the sake of entertainment. The Legend of Zelda took that template and expanded upon it, offering us a more detailed environment rich with history and ripe with content, a story with a background, and a character that became our link to the world – Link, the hero of the story clothed in green. At the heart of the game there is the idea of an adventure with the finer attributes of a story filled with diverse locations, a quest and interactive characters culminating in the formation of something magical and appealing. These finer points intertwined within the confines of the makeup of The Legend of Zelda gave it that ability to be individual; to stand out from the rest, even at a moment in time where the industry was just truly beginning. Being the first title in what would become a long running series and also the arrival of what could be considered the first generation of “hardcore” gamers, The Legend of Zelda established a profound experience that was unparallel and one that would prove to be a strength, yet also a weakness in later years.

Following the success of the first title, Nintendo made a daring move by offering up a second game in the series that changed many characteristics that served to be popular in the first. Released approximately a year later in Japan and almost two years later in the United States, Zelda II: The Adventure of Link was met with success yet the overall structure and feel of this game was noticeably different compared to its predecessor. Instead of a straight forward top-down viewpoint many had grown accustomed to in the first title, a majority of the game switched to a side scrolling perspective when introducing towns, palaces, and battle sequences, leaving the rest of the landscape to be explored by means of a world map if you will. Also apparent was the introduction of a deeper customization system. Previously limited to only acquiring newer items or weapons, Link was now given the option of upgrading his magic or strength of blade from collecting experience – a more strategic RPG element that had been introduced. [Note: It was decided to neglect mentioning health due to the presence of Heart Containers being found in the first game, rendering it unimportant of health being increased due to experience or finding a container, for each game respectively.] At the time of its release [and the present as well], the changes applied to this game over its predecessor can be seen as a triumphant achievement or as a failure/disappointment, depending on the perspective of the player.

This is where we will begin to identify what could be the root problem of the fan base surrounding The Legend of Zelda series. The main issue that is currently plaguing the health and current state of affairs in discussion over the Zelda seriesis the inability for fans to comprehend the idea of there being multiple perspectives to the series as a whole, some of which make it individual as a collective and each title on its own.

In addressing the release of Zelda II, players of the first title were given something that was on the cosmetic surface and inner structuring of the game to be something vastly different. As anyone who has played the game knows, the view point of the action was different at various points depending on the screen the player found themselves in; the customization of Link was equally unusual compared to the standard equipment found in the first title; this was clearly not the same game that players had remembered from before. It is certainly plausible to assume that this change in direction probably killed off veteran and returning players from the first entry. And why is that? The cause for this is most likely due to the robust change in the world of Hyrule that Link traversed, and not only the structuring of that world but also the alterations made to certain attributes that once made The Legend of Zelda [the first game] individual.

Now let’s examine perhaps why players of the first game were disappointed or deterred by the fundamental changes made to the second. It is common place in the affairs of humans to find that some are adaptable to change, and some are not. Some people herald change as something that can be inviting and bring about unique experiences – they welcome a fresh outlook or perspective that is brought to something once considered stale or outdated, they are hungry for a higher appreciation of different options available to them. This group will be referred to as Non-Traditionalists. On the flipside of that coin, there are those who profusely refuse to accept any change. There can be a number of assertions as to why that is: they are comfortable with what has been offered to them, they enjoy the current experiences and never tire of them, they do not wish to understand any new perspectives that may become evident elsewhere. This opposing group will be labeled as Traditionalists. These distinctions do NOT make either group advantageous or superior over the other, as they are perfectly entitled to their individual perspective collected from the knowledge they gained and thus used to generate their personal opinion.

Taking that into account, let us now apply those definitions to the narrative over the Zelda series: Non-Traditionalists are the players who although realized that Zelda II was a noticeably different game than its predecessor, and perhaps shocked at first, welcomed it as a new perspective and further enjoyed it, not forgetting where the series initially came from in the debut title. Perhaps they prefer Zelda II over The Legend of Zelda or vice-versa, yet they are not ignorant over the individuality of each game and the unique perspectives offered by each respective title. Therefore, they accept both titles for what each is and/or represents.

Traditionalists are the players who returned to Zelda II expecting a glorious second adventure reminiscent of the first title. Upon booting up the game and diving into the world, they were met with a different animal than what they had encountered during their first trip to Hyrule as Link. These players, being comfortable with the game play and direction of the first title, were turned off by the changes made to the second and in turn reacted accordingly. It can be assumed that some immediately felt contempt for Zelda II, rushing back to the safe haven that was The Legend of Zelda. However, it can also be assumed that others attempted to tread into the different game that was Zelda II, but were not satisfied with what it offered them or just could not connect with the changed world they had previously enjoyed in the first game. They enjoy the perspective that was created by the first game, yet dislike the perspective in the second title, recognizing the individuality of the one they prefer. These players may seem to be the weaker of the two types, but they are not because they are entitled to their own viewpoint, much like Non-Traditionalists. Some may in fact be ignorant of change, while some are not. Some may look at Zelda II, nod, and say, “Oh, I see what was done here and there, but it is not for me…” and therefore accept it for its attempt at doing something different, yet it doesn’t appeal to them, so they stick with the original.

In the midst of this situation we also have a bit of a paradox that arises, so imagine this scenario: Player 1 is a Traditionalist who loved the first game yet detested Zelda II; Player 2 is a Non-Traditionalist who loved The Legend of Zelda yet also enjoys the second title; Player 3 is a person [a “middle-man”, if you will] who did not like or get into the first game yet found enjoyment in the second game, recognizing something that made it individual to their tastes. Perhaps Player 3 did not like The Legend of Zelda and upon the release of Zelda II unexpectedly found something that intrigued them or gripped them? Perhaps they do not wish to tread backwards and discover the first game? This single event of offering up two titles in a game series, where both have completely different styles and traits – The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II – inadvertently creates an interesting scenario which constructs the multi-sided argument we find ourselves in today involving the Zelda series. It is highly likely that Nintendo did not know that this would happen to one of its most celebrated series; in fact, they had no prior knowledge that their new series would gain the attention that it garnered and become so beloved and eventually lead to this calamity.

The Zelda series was only two games into its catalog following its inception, yet already the fan base can be seen to be divided or at least swayed left [The Legend of Zelda] or right [Zelda II] depending on the respective individual opinions produced based off of the first two titles. This is also where the comparative aspect of the series begins to mold and take shape as well. Though different in terms of appearances and features unique to each title, The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II for the first time offered fans the ability to build an argument from an evaluation of each game based off of its type or its attributes, furthering the concept of perspective and individuality, and formulating an opinion.

Released for the Super Nintendo, the next installment of the series, A Link To The Past, would be seen as a return to form by the Traditionalists. Not only did this new game bring back what those players appreciated about the first title, it also expanded upon those elements: a more intrinsic story that was filled with lore, a larger cast of characters, and a myriad of other refinements that further built upon the foundation established in The Legend of Zelda. To many, Zelda was back! It’s safe to assume, judging by the acclaim and success A Link To The Past received at the time and has attracted over the years that a majority of the audience that enjoyed both of the previous games found salvation in the newest title. Traditionalists enjoyed it because of it harkening back to the roots of the first game, while Non-Traditionalists appreciated the title for inflicting them with nostalgia and the fresh tweaks that were made to the game play and structure, ensuring that it offered fresh and bold new ideas. Let us also not forget the newcomers to Zelda II who did not take to the first title: perhaps they disliked the newest addition because of it returning to the similar formula of the first game, and thus stuck with Zelda II. It can also be assumed that there were gamers who discovered A Link To The Past because of a variety of reasons: the advertising, word of mouth, reviewer acclaim, perhaps they were too young or were not even born yet when the first two games were released, or had not heard of the Zelda series prior. In a sense, these gamers become the “new” Player 3 from the analogy offered earlier. They are now taking interest in a series that they had no previous relation to, so perhaps they do not like the earlier entries [much like the original Player 3 with Zelda II], or maybe they will grow adventurous to discover the evolution of the Zelda series and then formulate their opinion based off of those experiences [becoming either a Traditionalist or Non-Traditionalist] and thus enjoy those perspectives.

Are you starting to notice a pattern that is developing with each subsequent release?

***Apologies if you are lost at this point, as this is quite a bit to take in and to contemplate, but are you starting to understand? Hang in there!

We will not discuss the fine points of the first handheld title, Link’s Awakening, other than the fact that it brought forward an alternative to the typical narrative found in previous Zelda games. For the first time, the world players explored was not Hyrule or of any relation to it, and the duo of characters at the helm of the story which would become a standard formula – namely Zelda and Ganon – were not involved directly with the events that transpired. It was a slight changeup: Zelda only received a mention and Ganon appeared as a figment of Link’s imagination within the dream that encapsulated the game, a nod to A Link To The Past. But Link’s Awakening offered something far more tangible than ever before in a Zelda title: characterization. Previous entries contained generic non player characters that Link could interact with but were very limited with little to no back story or any connection with Link whatsoever. Link’s Awakening introduced a more refined cast of characters that, although smaller, each individual was seen to have an individual personality and to have a background that was connected with the Island of Koholint. Each character was given a unique perspective of Link and the Island. It is also important to note that along with the detailed characterization, the story of the game was fare more fleshed out and coherent than any Zelda prior. Deciding to breathe life into the characters of the game enabled Nintendo to portray a fantasy world unlike ever before; the first game established a rough blueprint of what the series could be, and stood lofty amid the idea where at the heart it was about an adventure, and you, the player, were the adventurer. Each title since the original began to make adjustments to improve not only the game play, but also the world itself and the narrative. This change is another facet that naturally attracted returning and newer players to the series, yet also could have turned others away due to their unique expectations and not wanting to adjust to any change they encountered.

The next title, perhaps the most monumental outside of the first and third games, Ocarina of Time became recognized as the crown jewel of the series, and for good reason. The game marked the series’ first foray into the realm of 3D, portraying a far more realistic Hyrule than ever before and adding depth to the already seemingly familiar world of old. Taking cues from its brethren on past consoles, Ocarina contained elements of the original, plot references and a quest formula similar to A Link To The Past, and a more descriptive story that took center stage than ever before. Indeed, it would be apparent that Zelda had reached the pinnacle of its decadence as a series. Not only did it enthrall fans of past iterations, but it conveniently launched smack dab in the midst of an emerging newer generation of “hardcore” gamers. Remember, the original had launched in 1986, with Ocarina arriving 12 years later, and those who were preteens were now teens; those who were teens were now young adults in their 20s, and so on. Thus enters what can be considered the second generation of “hardcore” gamers, with these individuals caught in the middle of some drastic changes occurring in the industry. Many of the titles that are on the market are primarily in 3D with 2D games looking obsolete in comparison. Some franchises jump successfully onto the 3D bandwagon such as the Zelda series, with others lost in oblivion unless revived later on down the line in a future generation. Furthermore, this newer generation of fans would also in time create an updated version of or fuel the Traditionalist/Non-Traditionalist paradigm that had been created following the release of The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II – making the opinions of each fan grow more unique as the next one.

As we’ve come to realize, this isn’t exactly a bad thing, as this grants a unique perspective that compliments each individual opinion on a particular Zelda game or the series in general; it has proven to be both beneficial and a hindrance to the series in the present day, particularly after Ocarina of Time was released.

After the release of Ocarina, it was a secret to everybody [had to throw it in there!] that the series loomed high above the clouds at the crest of the mountain where Triple A titles rested. In fact, some journalists and publications claimed that it was the greatest game of all time, standing atop the great peak. It is obvious that the game stood as a sole testament to why we play video games – to be entertained, to be a part of something that we cannot conceptualize or recreate in reality, to be engrossed by a sequence of events that bring emotion, honesty and integrity into play. Though Roger Ebert would later claim that “…video games can never be art…” it becomes clear that a medium of entertainment such as video games can in fact be art, namely because it can touch so many in an inimitable way. A single game was able to fascinate a broad spectrum of people across the world and bring to fruition the original conception that Miyamoto had. For all of its worth, Ocarina may very well be the best title in the Zelda series due to its advances in the pieces which were set into place years before in the earlier iterations. But is it?

Ocarina has remained the apex of the series; there is no question about that or its importance. However, it has also served as a double-edged sword in the development of the series in the years since its release. Because of the attention it received, and rightly so, the game stands so high above that all of the subsequent titles which have come after are caught in the shadow of it. How many times have you found yourself discussing with a fellow Zelda fan or someone who has any knowledge of the series saying, “Yeah, but Ocarina is the best!” or “It won’t be as good as Ocarina…” What about even the nostalgic muses about past console generations with people who only played that title out of the series? “Yeah there was Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, and what was that other game…Ocarina of Time?!” This is frustrating to some, particularly the Non-Traditionalists of old and new who accept the past and present concepts in the series. Then there are the Traditionalists who stick with the game(s) that hooked them to begin with, or find no interest or much to like in future titles that came later.

The next immediate title, Majora’s Mask, can be seen as a “dark horse” of the series by some. Much like Link’s Awakening,this sequel to Ocarina took place outside of the standard “comfort zone” by featuring a story that had no involvement of Ganon or Zelda, but in place contained rich, almost psychedelic imagery and a haunting storyline that was coupled with deep characterization unlike any previous entry. To some [Non-Traditionalists], this next game would prove to be superior to its predecessor and was lauded for the individual and unique perspective it took. To others [Traditionalists], Majora proved to be something perhaps too difficult to understand or grasp [the in-game time system], too unfamiliar [the new locale and characters], the structure, or perhaps something else altogether that disappointed them or did not meet their expectations. Here we see a revival of the Traditionalist/Non-Traditionalist archetype that is strikingly familiar to that of the Legend of Zelda and Zelda II division begun 14 years earlier, which only accelerates in creating rampant discussions and criticisms over the direction of the series.

From this point on, it should be clear that no matter how many refinements are introduced or what revivals of classical elements are restored back into any modern iteration of the Zelda series that it is met with its share of praise and criticism. One needn’t look farther after Majora to see that The Wind Waker was initially perceived to be a failure aesthetically thanks in part to the decidedly more realistic and dark art direction of Ocarina and Majora. Because of the toon visuals it showcased, Wind Waker further developed a deeper trench inside the recesses of the minds of Traditionalist Zelda fans with some swearing off the series in general. Some fans were more open to the idea of it being a fresh look for the series and gave it a chance. The up and coming third generation of “hardcore” gamers would soon find their introduction into the series by Wind Waker. The controversy ignited over the graphical direction of the newest title was enough to bring Nintendo out citing defense of the fledgling game before it ever released, yet it also evidently left an impact on the minds of those who created Wind Waker, as the outcry sparked the return of a more stylistic return to the “mature” direction of Ocarina in the next installment – Twilight Princess. This array of events was almost duplicated in the reveal of the most recently released title, Skyward Sword, a game that seemed to blend the art styles of the previous two perhaps in an effort to appease fans of both styles – the Traditionalists and the Non-Traditionalists – and also draw on fresh ideas to mix with the older ones that proved to be popular. Ever the most daring, and due to the nature of the Wii’s unique control scheme, Skyward Sword introduced an overhaul of the way the game was intended to be played. To some fans Skyward Sword was a success of merging the characteristics of classical and newer Zelda, whilst to others, it failed to do so or have an impact on them.

With Skyward Sword now behind Zelda fans, many look eagerly to the future to see what the next entry will bring. It has already been revealed that instead of a newer installment there will be a high definition remake of The Wind Waker in celebration of its tenth anniversary. No doubt this reissue is once again stirring the pot of those who are tired of retreads across old ground and those who do not favor the visual style of The Wind Waker in preference of a more mature approach, sparking anew the debate that has nearly been at the core of the fan base since the inception of the series. Also, do not forget that we are coming upon what could be considered the fourth generation of “hardcore” gamers, who will undoubtedly cast their vote as to what is considered to be a Zelda game.

In terms of individuality and perception, where does this leave us?

When considering the Zelda series as a whole on a macro scale, a collective, we have a video game franchise that has brought title after title that has captivated millions and continues to expand upon the base it began in 1986. It is an individual franchise that carries its own distinctive perspective among other franchises due to its individuality. On a micro scale, an individual level, we have a series that contains a number of specific entries that appeal to different fans of the broader collective due to various characteristics that are inherently unique to a particular title. Each title is seen to be individual at its core for the concepts that it carries in its weight – the story, the characters, the world, the interface in which we interact with that world – grants each title its own perspective.

Because of this, there is no bad Zelda game. One title may differ from another due to the features it holds, yet each one stands as an equal based off of its individuality and the perspective it gives us – whether it is the original Legend of Zelda with its archaic, nonlinear structure that established series norms, the depth of the story and world ushered in by Ocarina of Time, the superb characterization of Majora’s Mask, the whimsical almost Disney-like approach to the visual splendor that is Wind Waker, or the risky, motion controlled epic origin chronicle that is Skyward Sword – each game means something different to each and every fan of the series for different reasons exclusive to that individual, and for whatever honors or criticisms is bestowed upon a single title or the series itself, it is merely the opinion that has been generated by the perception of that person.

There are certain aspects of Zelda that fans, no matter what preference they have, know to be synonymous with Zelda, and will always remain that way. Nintendo has created something magical. No matter whether you consider yourself to be a Traditionalist or a Non-Traditionalist, or someone who does not subscribe to labels, it is always important to remember that you are perfectly entitled to your opinion on the subject matter of something tangible. There will always be division amongst fans over the past and future of the Zelda series, it is to be expected. On the contrary, criticism and arguments are healthy in which they address key issues pertaining to something worth discussing, but you mustn’t disregard the perspective of another individual just because they do not fit the mold of your own. That leads to ignorance, and when you exert ignorance, you are losing sight of something fantastic and the chance to conceptually open your mind to new ideas or something intrinsic to be evaluated. You are not alone; there are others who feel strongly about a particular aspect within the perspective of something with conviction – you just have to open your eyes, see it, and have faith.