Should There Be Only One Zelda Per System?

[basement24]

In future installments of the Zelda series would you like to see two entries appear on the same system (like OoT and MM were) or would you rather that each new title was brought out on a new Nintendo console? This would include having a game on two systems at the same time such as TP was handled, but it would count as the one title for that system (ie - TP is Wii's Zelda, with no additional Zelda until the next console release)

Personally, I would be happy that each new title would be on a new system. This would probably mean fewer Zelda titles, but then second entries would feel a little more original than a sequel to the previous title.

I'm a bit afraid that ST woun't feel as original since it's on the same platform as PH. Not that I won't enjoy it, but the novelty of a new system with all the upgrades that they encompass really help sell a new Zelda title to me as a unique experience. I really enjoy both OoT and MM, but I still can't help but feel that MM is just an extension of OoT because of the level of technology they were both at.

I guess I just equate Zelda as being such a monumental gaming experience upon each release, and I find that a double-system release diminishes that slightly.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Kazumi]

Well. I'd have to say two Zelda's on each system is an excellent number. Anymore and it may be pushing it. Bar a spin off or maybe even two. Of course, in the example of the N64, OoT was a great start. A great game with new technology and a new engine, but MM in my opinion was better. This is mostly because it expands on the OoT engine and makes it the best it can be. It knows the limits and works just inside of them, packing as much content as possible and keeping nice and fresh ideas.

This is why I like two Zelda's on one console. One to break it in. With a brand new engine using new technology and fresh things and the like. And then a second Zelda on the console, which knows the most outer boundaries, and pushes the engine to it's limits, with a whole bunch of awesome new, and interesting fresh stuff. To me it seems like a perfect system to use.

But then you get the Wii. Did TP really break in the Wii and it's engine? I don't think so. It's just a Gamecube port really. But the Wii is already midway through it's life, and I don't know/think that there will be time for a sequel of such if Zelda Wii "breaks in" the new engine. So.. Yeah.. TP is where it gets muddled up. TP was just a Gamecube port, using the same engine as the GC one, nothing special. So Wii Zelda will be using a brand new engine most likely, with a whole bunch of things such as OoT on the N64. But will there be time for an MM on the Wii?

Do you get what I'm saying? Anyway, I think that two Zelda's per console is enough.. In a nutshell.

 

[JammerJaw]

I don't think two Zelda games on the same console would make much difference, but that's just me. I want moar Zelda! :nerd:

But in any case, I truly hope this upcoming Zelda isn't like Twilight Princess.

Don't get me wrong, I like TP, but I just want something new, you know?

Maybe if Nintendo would allow another company to develop a Zelda game, like with Metroid...

 

[Alex_Da_Great]

I have noticed that there is always one main game for the console, and then another which was brought on that one and the next one. For example, OOT is the main zelda on N64 while MM was released on OOT, it was also released on the Gamecube. Same thing with WW and TP.

So I think there should be two games on one console with the later one also coming out on the next console.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

I do think one game per console would work rather well. It's not just the hardware that it's played on that needs to be "perfected", but it's also the ideas that were brought in by the last installment. I think the latter is much more important. You can take the original LoZ and ALttP as probably the prime examples here. LoZ was amazing for its time, and is no doubt one of the best on the NES. Then you had AoL, but it was so different, I'll disregard it in the example. ALttP came along in the next console generation, and took what LoZ had and ran with it to create something really special. They didn't make the abilities of the NES better, but rather took the game on it and perfected it's ideas in the next installment.

That's what I think needs to happen. TP was plentiful of excellent ideas, regardless of whether you think they were utilized properly or not. With Zelda Wii, I would hope a LoZ/ALttP scenario would occur: Wii Zelda should take TP's excellent ideas and try to perfect them in the same way, along with some new Wii tech as an added bonus. Wii Zelda will hopefully succeed in this, and mix some new ideas of its own in. Then I would expect the next home console Zelda to do even better with those. Two on the same console can work, as is evidence of MM being so good, but with tech getting better, and games taking longer to develop, I would perfer they amaze us once every console, and then immediately start gearing up for the next one on the next console.

 

[Shadsie]

As a lifelong fiscally-challenged person, I don't like the idea of having to buy a new system each time to experience every new game in my favorite series.

As it is, I don't consider myself much of a "gamer" because of the not being able to buy multiple systems and games like some people are able to. Everything I get tends to come in the form of gifts, and even then, it's the cheaper "out of date" technology rather than the new. My most advanced console right now is a GameCube and my most advanced handheld is a GBA. As it is, most of the console Zelda titles I've gotten to play have been GameCube, emulated versions of games (the N64 emulations), and borrowed.

So, I'm in favor of... more of that - Nintendo emulating the games for people who "missed" systems along the way, and more in the ways of multiple games for a given system so a Zelda fan can enjoy games in the series on whatever they happen to have on hand for a good, long time before being asked to fork over more money for the "new and the upgraded."

For me, it's the story that counts, not the system, and I'd hate to think of fans missing out on more stories because they or their parents can't afford new systems all the time. I think it could also help Ninentdo's creativity a bit to work within a single system for longer - to work out great stories with the limitations of this or that system, instead of to be always rushing to flagship the (sometimes buggy) new.

*Knows she is a minority, is cringing and bracing herself to take her licks for it.*

 

[Shnappy]

Zelda games released on each console (If I count GB and GBC as different consoles)...

NES - LoZ, AoL (sequels)
SNES - ALttP
GB - LA
N64 - OoT, MM (sequels)
GBC - OoS, OoA (sequels), LA DX (remake)
GC - TWW, TP, FSA
GBA - TMC, ALttP (remake), FS
Wii - TP, and eventually Z2010 (maybe a sequel)
DS - PH, and soon ST (sequel)

Looking at this, we can see that (excluding TP on the Gamecube, and the FS/A games) every time a two Zelda games were released on a console, they were sequels. Also, there was never more than three games released on a system (excluding LA DX, and FS/A). And I'm perfectly fine with this. It would be weird to have sequels be on different consoles in the first place, so what Nintendo has done so far has made perfect sense and I won't be mad if more games were released on a console, even if they weren't sequels.

 

[elliotstriforce]

well, 1 zelda per system would suck because it would take forever for a new zelda to come out, i would get super bored while waiting for a new zelda to come out.

2 zelda's per system would not be enough because i like to have a lot of zelda to play for one system so i would not have to hook up another system.

3 zelda's however would be pretty awesome because i could beat one, pop it out, put in another, beat that one, pop it out, put in the third one and then beat that one.

 

[Silver]

I wouldn't mind at all for if multiple Zelda titles were released on the same system! I find that very little things are involved, mostly the plot such as, boy runs into enemy, enemy steals the maiden, Link goes on quest same old and I like that! So I approve that multiple games are a good thing in a way.

 

[DKMac]

I agree with two being the best for each system. I would like to play more, but I think any more than two and the titles would be rushed and not as polished. I don't play alot of games. I pretty much wait for the next Zelda title to come out to buy a new console. I'll goof around with Mario, and not too long ago discovered the Metroid series. But other than those, I don't play alot of games. Ok, maybe I am too old to be playing video games. But I have been playing Zelda ever since the original, and look forward to each new game.

 

[Link Master]

No I do not agree with this because I like Zelda and if there were only one per system the games MC, OS, and spirit tracks and a few more would have never had been seen.

 

[basement24]

No I do not agree with this because I like Zelda and if there were only one per system the games MC, OS, and spirit tracks and a few more would have never had been seen.

I'm not saying that we would go back and erase games that did have this happen to them, but what would your opinion be if this were to happen from this point on. It wouldn't erase games, it just might spread them out. I suppose games that are similar in nature to OoX's dual-release wouldn't happen anymore though, but OoX would still exist now!

 

[Twilight Prince]

Personally I don't think this is a great idea, for one reason, they would only have one new Zelda game every time a new console came out, so what is that one Zelda game comes out every 7+ years?(The average age of a console). That would be stupid, I see what you mean by original, but having to wait more then 7 years for a Zelda game would just be mean!

 

[Zarom]

Personally I don't think this is a great idea, for one reason, they would only have one new Zelda game every time a new console came out, so what is that one Zelda game comes out every 7+ years?(The average age of a console). That would be stupid, I see what you mean by original, but having to wait more then 7 years for a Zelda game would just be mean!

I agree with that. We can't wait 7 years, or even 5 years to get our hands on a new Zelda. That will make us loose interest, and casual gamers to loose interest in Zelda. D:

Two Zelda games per console seems a really ideal number for me. I would not want more than that, because then, they would not be original enough. 1 amazing game is better than 3 whack games.
There should at least have a new Zelda game per year, or every 2 years.

 

[Master Kokiri 9]

Oh he** no! That would mean only one or two Zeldas for like 5 or 6 years at a time! I would easily prefer two or three Zeldas per system thank you very much.