I would really like a Zelda Story split up into multiple games.

Instead of having just one game one storyline, have it began and wrap up in that one game.
Why not develop a HUGE storyline for the next game. Let the storyline go on for about 3 games.
That would be amazing. Throught out the game, Link grows as a character and you get into the story.
The only con would be waiting like almost 10 years for the games to all come out.
Ofcourse they could easily pull a Call of Duty and release a game every year in the holiday season.

In the end of each game you are left with a big cliffhanger or something to justify the end of that one game but the story will continue in the next one.
It would certainly pay way for a big dramatic storyline to effect us players.
Then the 3rd game would present this massive final battle.

Imagine it somewhat like thae Harry Potter films, how they split up the last film into 2 parts.
Yay or Nay?
I say yay!

Kind of similar to WW, PH, ST. With one Link?

the 'Links' of WW, PH, and ST are not all the same, Wind Fish. WW and PH are but ST has a much later Link.

Besides that, I think it would be an interesting idea. It wouldn't take 10 years like you say, Nintendoguy, especially if they use the same art style and 'sprites'/ base designs.

^ You do have a point Deviod!

The Oracle games accomplish this. Of course, there's also the continuation of the stories of various Links. You've got OoT-MM, ALttP-LA, LoZ-AoL, TWW-PH. Anyway, I think it's a good idea to wrap the story up at game's end. Is it a good idea to go from paying 50-60 bucks per game to paying 100-150? That's basically what will happen if you need to go and buy a second game.

For those of you bringing up OoT-MM, WW-PH, LoZ-AoL, etc.:

These were all examples of separate stories that happen to use the same hero, with the exception of the Oracle games. I think the OP means ONE big story split up into several games... in other words, even though the hero accomplishes much during the course of the game, the ending is left unresolved. The next game would have to pick up right where the other one left off.

Take Kill Bill, for example. It's all one story, but it was divided into two parts.

I think it could work, but realistically......I wouldn't want to wait 3 games to have the ending solved....that would suck....I'd forget story plots and would get bored and it would just be crazy.

Originally Posted by Devoid

the 'Links' of WW, PH, and ST are not all the same, Wind Fish. WW and PH are but ST has a much later Link.

Besides that, I think it would be an interesting idea. It wouldn't take 10 years like you say, Nintendoguy, especially if they use the same art style and 'sprites'/ base designs.

>.> I know that... I guess I should have said "Like those three games BUT with one Link

I would dig it so much.

I wait a year in between Call of Dutys and Assassin's Creeds and I don't forget the plot, I just want more.

Also, OoT-MM and TWW-PH are all complete games, not a part of a continuing plot. You could easily pick up PH or MM and just get into it without knowing what happened beforehand.

An Assassin's Creed-esqe type thing would be awesome for Zelda, having one game released once a year with a continuing plot. It could bring Zelda back out of the doldrums it's in now, but Nintenderp would need to hire a few more people to work on Zelda for it. God forbid...

So, it would be awesome, but it's not happening.

*Gag* bad eggs... *Wretch*

I would die for something like this. This is an incredible idea. Yay from me!

I honestly wouldn't like waiting 3 or more years to get to the conclusion of a game, but that's just me.

If a zelda game ended with a huge "To be continued" I'm gonna be honest that would be awesome!! It would be soo different from what we are used to, I think it would be cool!

Great idea, hadn't ever thought about that being a possiblity before, I think it should happen!

I oppose this idea of splitting Zelda stories into "volumes." One of Zelda's greatest assets is that you can start with any game you want and you can still understand that game's story, because all Zelda stories up to this point are stand alone ones. Even direct sequels like Majora's Mask follow a completely different story than its predecessor and don't require you to play Ocarina of Time to "get" Majora's Mask's story. Think for a moment: if all Zelda games followed a chronological order of direct sequels, then anybody wanting to experience Zelda would have to start at the original NES TLoZ to understand TP or SS. Avoiding that kind of mess is part of what has kept TLoZ alive for more than 25 years.

Hmm, I think that the idea of it being one story would be risky. Each game needs a start and a finish, or people will be frustrated.

This being said, that already happens. Many Links appear in two games. (Legend of Zelda-Zelda II, Link to the Past-Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time-Majora's Mask, etcetera).

I personally think your idea is interesting, however I doubt Nintendo will every do this because of the risk involved with the business.

I would love to see this done on a small scale, and that would involve DLC for me.

Release the first part of a Zelda game, which would include the introduction and the first dungeon. Then, maybe a month or two later, release the next dungeon and enlarge the map, to be added onto the file you've already created.

Naturally, with preferrably short timespans between releases, the quality of the games themselves will be basic. I'm thinking Minish Cap-like standards, though maybe with 3D graphics or something. Each release should offer a good chunk of gameplay, though: the adventuring leading up to the next dungeon, the next dungeon itself, and perhaps some good side quests or other bonus content.

Now, if this split game was put into the hands of a side production team, they could possibly wip out these "quickies" that would be basic in gameplay but reasonably enjoyable available for purchase, while still being able to work on the big Zelda titles.

Originally Posted by Thegargoylevine

I oppose this idea of splitting Zelda stories into "volumes." One of Zelda's greatest assets is that you can start with any game you want and you can still understand that game's story, because all Zelda stories up to this point are stand alone ones. Even direct sequels like Majora's Mask follow a completely different story than its predecessor and don't require you to play Ocarina of Time to "get" Majora's Mask's story. Think for a moment: if all Zelda games followed a chronological order of direct sequels, then anybody wanting to experience Zelda would have to start at the original NES TLoZ to understand TP or SS. Avoiding that kind of mess is part of what has kept TLoZ alive for more than 25 years.

I see your point, but would counter that MGS is still an extremely popular series in its own right (and genre. I do NOT want Zelda to become MGS, please don't misinterpret me) with the series being almost incomprehensible without having played the games in sequence.

I like the idea of Zelda getting a sort of trilogy treatment; however, I can relate to what Thegargoylevine said about the possible conflict this may have on the tradition of all Zelda games being conclusive. What I like more about the series, though, is how each game attempts to do something new visually or gameplay-wise. That said, I wouldn't mind split volumes being applied to the next LoZ game as one of those novelty aspects. It would definitely be a solution for long waits between console Zeldas. Developers can also see this more as a chance to efficiently present a wider variety of ideas in the games through a trilogy by recycling a lot of its systems and assets. This could give us at least three games for a console generation while still presenting different and unique gameplay concepts on each title, staying true to the novelty part of the series' tradition.

Originally Posted by Ralphpotato

I personally think your idea is interesting, however I doubt Nintendo will every do this because of the risk involved with the business.

How would it be a risk? Trilogies and parts have become like a very popular business strategy to stretch revenue in both film and video games. So much that one of my only problems with Zelda getting a trilogy treatment would be that it would be too influenced by business and greed.

It would be totally awesome if they would make it. But it would annoy me to no end to wait for the second part to be finally released. I’m sure Zelda has the potential for this if done properly and it would be a good addition.

But they should only go with it when they have a big story to tell which can’t be done in just one game. I mean if they just want to make a story build up for 15-20 temples and tons of side quests and cut scenes without a much deeper story and character development they can just as well make two separated games and leave it at this.

It reminds me of Golden Sun, a RPG for Game Boy Advance. The story was also split up in two parts (long parts by the way) and you were left with a big hole in the end of the first one. I was lucky that the second game was already released at that time because the game really fascinated me.
But a friend of me played the second part first and although he lacked the part of the story of the first one he could still follow it because the most important things you have to know were given by the game. He got through it nevertheless and said he enjoyed it but of course it makes more fun if you know the background to get all references.

What I want to say with this is, that it is possible to make a strong connected two parted game which doesn’t necessary require to play the first. I think that aspect would be important for a Zelda game as I think someone mentioned that one could pick any Zelda game and still get into the story without being completely confused.

If I went through a whole game and it just ended on a cliffhanger I'd say I'd be pretty damn annoyed. I prefer my games to be a self-contained experience.

Originally Posted by Thegargoylevine

I oppose this idea of splitting Zelda stories into "volumes." One of Zelda's greatest assets is that you can start with any game you want and you can still understand that game's story, because all Zelda stories up to this point are stand alone ones. Even direct sequels like Majora's Mask follow a completely different story than its predecessor and don't require you to play Ocarina of Time to "get" Majora's Mask's story. Think for a moment: if all Zelda games followed a chronological order of direct sequels, then anybody wanting to experience Zelda would have to start at the original NES TLoZ to understand TP or SS. Avoiding that kind of mess is part of what has kept TLoZ alive for more than 25 years.

And one of the greatest assets in Assassin's Creed is the continuing plot.

It's what keeps people buying AC games.

Also, we're talking one three part saga, not linking all of the fandom together. THAT would be a bad idea.

Also, each could be a complete game, not a third of one.