Tradition is what maintains that classic Zelda allure and I don’t think Nintendo plans on tampering with the classic formula anytime soon. While I do sanction innovation in Zelda games, a game can’t be “too fresh” or “too new”. The Zelda series has stuck to somewhat strict guidelines that have carried the series far. If a Zelda game were to stray too far from the beaten path, I have no doubt that disaster would strike. A Zelda game that plays like Metal Gear Solid or Uncharted would be too drastic a change, and fans certainly can’t handle that. And puzzle/adventure games are what Link fits most comfortably in - if Nintendo were to try to shift the Zelda universe to a whole different genre or style of gameplay, who knows how the finished product will turn out?
Taking such a leap would be too great a risk. After all, Nintendo has been developing Zelda games using a certain method. The atmosphere, time setting, enemies and muteness of the characters all combine to create definitive gaming experiences. Say Nintendo develops an open world/sandbox Zelda Western (like Red Dead Redemption). Nintendo has virtually no experience in this field of gaming, and the outcome will most likely be unsightly. But when one thinks of innovation, his/her first thought probably won’t be of such a severe modification to the series. It could be something as small as the technology in the game or a slight alteration in time setting. Some great examples of how innovation has been a benefactor for Zelda games are Spirit Tracks and Phantom Hourglass. Although the two games have not necessarily been regarded as the two of the greatest Zeldas, their ambitious changes really mixed things up and kept gamers interested in the series. The inclusion of high-tech boats and trains were curious decisions on Nintendo’s part, but it really paid off. Spirit Tracks and Phantom Hourglass ended up selling almost 7 million units combined.
Innovation in Zelda games have also led to other such successes. After all, Ocarina of Time was the
Gone in the Wind of video games. It became recognized as one of the greatest games of all time (of not the greatest), and brought several new gameplay concepts to the table. The lock-on revolutionized gaming forever. OoT introduced this lock-on feature, which made targeting enemies and knowing who or what you’re aiming for easier to track. Not only that, Ocarina of Time set some precedents for the series that are still followed today. The game was the first 3D Zelda, and perhaps one of the first video games to demonstrate the full capabilities of 3D games. Gamers had been skeptical of the quality of 3D games in the 90s, but OoT put gaming community at ease, for they knew that 3D games could really work out.
(Pictured below is Ocarina of Time's ground-breaking lock-on system)
But after all the positive comments I’ve bestowed upon the “innovation” side of this argument, why do I still value tradition more? Well, when it all comes down to what makes a Zelda game first-rate it is the essence of a traditional Zelda game that it requires. The most simplistic aspects of Zelda games are what truly (and undoubtedly) make these games worth playing. They are the little standards or precedents set by previous Zelda games that are continued and present in each and every Zelda game that help define the game’s nature - they are Zelda games. Without those quirks, items, characters and locations like the muteness of characters, familiar races/enemies, the Master Sword, Hero’s Clothes, Zelda, Link, Hyrule Castle, etc. that have been displayed in most games in the franchise to date, the Zelda series would probably cease to exist today.
