Another Prequel? Really? Oh Boy...

[Cynic]

Am I the only one disappointed this game is set to be another prequel? There's only so much left about the history of the Zelda universe we do not know or haven't really inferred yet.

 

[Beeker]

I'm not dissapointed at all with this. In fact, I like the idea of the plot going into Zelda history and revealing the origin to one of the most important things in Zelda- the Master Sword. This game could answer some questions for sure.

But, with another game comes more information that we can take and try to theorize with. There's always something that stays mysterious.

 

[Hero of Time]

I like it being a prequel. And don't be worried because if anyone can make something out of nothing it's Nintendo.

 

[TreeHuggerPanda]

I'm not that disappointed, like Beeker said, it could answer some questions, like the origin of the master sword, or how Hyrule came to be. It might be a little annoying to piece the timeline back again for it to make sense, but at least we can get some answers^^

 

[athenian200]

I'm not disappointed, but I am curious as to why they keep going further back into history rather than going forward. It's the opposite of the way you typically expect a series to progress.

I wonder if it's to avoid having to explain the lack of technological advancement? Oh, well.

 

[(◕‿◕✿)]

While I would like to see games that take place later on, I don't necessarily dislike prequels either. I'm not really disappointed, a prequel might actually be pretty interesting.

 

[Bluelink6]

I like this. It means less modern type or vaguely more modern type of technology in Zelda, which is something I don't like.

 

[Locke]

They've been throwing ideas from before OoT in many games for a long time (MS, Majora, Sheikah, most of TP's backstories, the war(s), and so on). It's nice to be able to build on those ideas and tie them together. However, I do hope they don't make a habit of this (this is only like the 4th time they've done it), as it limits their creative freedom (not in this instance, because they've specifically given them a lot of material to be creative with) and begs for inconsistencies (SW anyone?).

 

[Raven]

I'm not worried, although before it was confirmed I was pretty convinced that it would be a sequel... now I'm thinking that with the story it adds to the series, and lore it adds to Hyrule it wouldn't have mattered if they had made the game before or after TP, it will still been amazing either way (that is to say it could have been fit in after TP, if the story doesn't condradict that timeline placement...)

anyway it's not like they are limiting themselves because it's the past and not the future. I think they space the games out enough, timewise, so that there is plenty of changes were we would expect similarities. this could be a far past in which Hyrule is completely different from what we know. There are almost no boundaries in terms of game layout and geography if the game is set so far back in history.

 

[nintendo4ever]

i like that its a prequel. i feel that nintendo should answer the questions about ancient hyrule gamers have been wondering about for years before getting into anything new

 

[Destiny]

I would actually prefer a prequel. Personally, I do not care for the ocean themed 'New Hyrule'. So going backwards is mostly Ideal for me.
Plus, I would enjoy it to answer some questions people have.

 

[Hero Of Spirits]

I am fully 100% percent behind the idea of this game. If you ask me, I think we should all derserve to know how the first Hylians came into being. And the best thing, that I'm looking forward to the most... The Origins Of The Master Sword. DUN DUN!!! It will be cool to know how it first arrived.

 

[Tyeforce]

I don't understand why people think that Nintendo only makes prequels for Zelda games nowadays. The last three Zelda games were SEQUELS, not prequels. TP was a sequel to MM, PH was a sequel to TWW, and ST was a sequel to PH. I think it's about time we got another good prequel.

 

[DeletedUser9]

It might be a little annoying to piece the timeline back again for it to make sense, but at least we can get some answers^^

Um. Well. I wouldn't exactly expect answers as far as the timeline is concerned. Maybe that's a little cynical of me buuuuut... I dunno, this game does seem like it might be especially revealing. But well... Nintendo has a history. The last couple of games have been pretty confusing in terms of continuity.

anyway it's not like they are limiting themselves because it's the past and not the future. I think they space the games out enough, timewise, so that there is plenty of changes were we would expect similarities. this could be a far past in which Hyrule is completely different from what we know. There are almost no boundaries in terms of game layout and geography if the game is set so far back in history.

Yeah, basically all the games have been really spaced out anyway. Look at TWW and TP, both of which take place hundreds of years after OoT. And I'm pretty certain actually (I've mentioned this in my article Skyward Sword: Legends of Old Hyrule) that we're seeing an ancient, very different version of Hyrule.


Regardless, I think sequel vs. prequel is kind of irrelevant as long as the story is intriguing. If they were to use it as a crutch it would annoy me, but IMO they haven't done that yet. To be honest, I think the weakest games in the series storytelling-wise have been the sequels, like TP. I think prequels are better in some ways, especially in this case, as they don't have to follow established lore as much, they can be more free. I look forward to what they have to offer us. :3

 

[Locke]

I don't understand why people think that Nintendo only makes prequels for Zelda games nowadays. The last three Zelda games were SEQUELS, not prequels. TP was a sequel to MM, PH was a sequel to TWW, and ST was a sequel to PH. I think it's about time we got another good prequel.

Right. This would only be their 2nd prequel in over 10 years I think.

I think prequels are better in some ways, especially in this case, as they don't have to follow established lore as much, they can be more free.

Really? I thought it would be the other way around. With sequels they can do crazy things like flood Hyrule, kill existing villains, make up new ideas from scratch, and easily modify existing ideas. But it's very difficult to add new content before existing games without having to explain why it wasn't present in the other games, and if they do try to incorporate existing material, they'd be more governed by how it was introduced in other games.

I'll give you LttP as an example that does seem more free, but only because there were only two other games at the time. OoT followed the established lore of LttP (the SW), and MC followed the established lore of FS/FSA (though they were able to squeeze in a little more info about the origins of Vaati and the blade, etc). Most of what they did in those games was dictated by the backstories of previous games.
On the other hand, there was no precedent for WW or TP, for example. Just about everything there was new ideas. Yes, they were expanded from OoT's story, but they were allowed to expand in any direction without bounds. This is why there are (at release) 8 sequels and only 4 prequels (not including LoZ, OoX, FS).