<![CDATA[Email: Zelda without Zelda]]>I’m really bothered by the direction Nintendo is taking Zelda, it hardly feels like Zelda anymore.  Wind Waker felt like Nintendo was shoving in stuff that didn’t belong in a Zelda game (cutsey art style, pirates, etc), but to me it still was, at its heart, “Zelda.”  Twilight Princess, on the other hand, felt completely opposite, as if Zelda elements were instead shoved into a game where they didn’t belong.  Spirit Tracks was even worse in that regard; It was so bad that I felt that if I could just reach in and take out Zelda, Link, and any other Zelda Trademarks I would have a completely non-Zelda (dare I say anti-Zelda) game.

Well, I tried it out on one of the wallpapers for Spirit Tracks, and this is what happened:

Please, someone tell me what about this picture says “The legend of Zelda”

One of the mistakes Nintendo, and many video game makers, make is to assume the sequels are ‘decent’ because sales remained ‘decent’. When a hit game comes out, most people automatically buy the sequel even if it sucks. Once they realize this game sucks, they tend to not automatically buy the next sequel.

Zelda is a little more absurd as the fans will buy a Zelda, be very unhappy with it, and say to themselves, “This is an outlier. The next Zelda will be as amazing as Ocarina of Time / Link to the Past /Zelda I and II/ etc.” After the next bad Zelda, they say the same thing. And the cycle goes on and on. If anything is going to change in Zelda, this cycle must end.

Nintendo doesn’t know what Zelda is. And if they do have some definition, it is incompatible to what gave birth to the series in the first place.

I do not recognize this game series.

]]>