OP
OP
You deserve an award for this. You've solved the discrepancy!
, ERA.
LMAO
COMPLETELY agree. And no, they aren't canon. It's like people can't distinguish between Zelda history and Zelda canon.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The CD-i Zeldas are part of Zelda history, whether we like it or not. It's time to face facts.
- Thread starter brainchild
- Start date
You deserve an award for this. You've solved the discrepancy!
LMAO
COMPLETELY agree. And no, they aren't canon. It's like people can't distinguish between Zelda history and Zelda canon.
At least since the leadup to Twilight Princess, I've been really wanting Nintendo to make Zelda games where you can play as Zelda, as well as Link. They keep giving Zelda decent roles in parts of the 3d Zelda games, but she's never playable, and almost always spends time kidnapped because of course she does. And that's not even mentioning terrible sexist stuff like the plot of Phantom Hourglass, aka "let's ruin Tetra's character, the game", etc. (I actually mostly liked PH, but the story is really bad.)
That Nintendo is so dedicated to "only Link can be playable in Zelda games we make, never a female character who isn't some relatively minor side element like statue-Zelda in Spirit Tracks or Midna on wolf Link in TP" that they let you play as Link wearing Zelda's dress in Triforce Heroes, but not Zelda or a female Link, is really telling. I know that there are people who defend Nintendo's position here, but how can Link be a "link" between the player and the game, as the name suggests, without gender selection?
But on the other hand here's Phillips, who decided to give Zelda the lead role in a full two of the three Zelda games they made. That's kind of cool.
as long as we start including the star wars holiday special in the rankings of star wars movies, then sure
They're not even canon.
Sure they were made but it doesn't even matter.
They'll never see the light of day ever again and anyone who likes good games will be 100% ok with it.
TL;DR: Nobody cares about the cdi zelda games.
Bury them 6 feet or more idgaf.
Sure they were made but it doesn't even matter.
They'll never see the light of day ever again and anyone who likes good games will be 100% ok with it.
TL;DR: Nobody cares about the cdi zelda games.
Bury them 6 feet or more idgaf.
The Arabian Nights motif really was great, the games had decent concepts even if heavily flawed. The games also gave us the ability to control Zelda in a Zelda game which I have no idea why Nintendo has never tried it. The cutscenes aren't really their fault, there wasn't much Zelda media back when the games came out and they mostly used what they saw on the cartoon as an inspiration.
I was never a fan of having Link be a girl in BOTW, but I would have loved Zelda being the hero of BOTW.
I was never a fan of having Link be a girl in BOTW, but I would have loved Zelda being the hero of BOTW.
They were three of four games made with a ridiculously small budget and as part of a deal Nintendo made as a compromise after the whole SNES-CD thing fell through. While they were technically officially licensed products, Nintendo themselves completely refuse to acknowledge their existence whenever possible, and when it isn't possible, emphasise that they're not remotely in-continuity in any form.
Considering Nintendo have almost literally disowned those games and have washed their hands of them... They're only part of Zelda history in a very loose, technical sense. And I mean extremely loose. They're more like footnotes at best. In terms of discussing quality, they're basically irrelevant outliers.
Considering Nintendo have almost literally disowned those games and have washed their hands of them... They're only part of Zelda history in a very loose, technical sense. And I mean extremely loose. They're more like footnotes at best. In terms of discussing quality, they're basically irrelevant outliers.
I couldn't agree more.
Bad games on a sub-par device with an extremely limited audience aren't a hill worth dying on.
Japanese companies have a great deal of pride when it comes to their efforts, and rightly so. I wouldn't expect them to laud another company's work, especially when it was regarded as a failure.
Frankly, obscurity is better than these games deserve. Oblivion is more appropriate, but there they are.
"The Legend of Zelda, one of Nintendo's storied intellectual properties as influential as it is successful. Oh, and some peeps tried to make some Zelda games on a non-Nintendo system and they sucked. Bad."
Boom! Due rememberance given.
Next wild ride please, OP.
I wouldn't say that they're canon, but they're Zelda games, whether people like it or not. Not that Hyrule Warriors is anywhere close to being as bad as the CD-i Zelda games, but Hyrule Warriors serves as a clear example that Zelda fans can be accepting of an impostor Zelda game developed by someone other than Nintendo as long as it's "good enough" to not smear the series' name, even if that game isn't true to the spirit of the series. (It wouldn't have sold nearly as well as a Dynasty Warriors game, though.) Every series has its low points, and I daresay that the CD-i Zelda games should be counted as the low point for the Zelda series, because Nintendo did - even if only by accident - allow them to see the light of day.
Haha, this is the first time I've ever seen 'Fuck you' as a legitimate option in a survey.
And it's the option with the most votes (currently).
And it's the option with the most votes (currently).
OP
OP
People really do seem to be selecting that vote non-sarcastically.
OP
OP
Honestly, the CD-i games are probably better remembered as a relic of the last real point of an age where Japanese game companies were content with letting western licencees go nuts with their licenses with minimal (if any) supervision. Licensed video game stuff from Japanese companies just stopped happening around that period for the most part - it wasn't just Nintendo, the likes of SEGA started clamping down around the time of the fifth/sixth gen period, with the only survivor of the 'purge' being the Sonic Archie comic due to comic being fairly profitable, and even then it went through major shifts due to the writers throwing a fit at the sudden oversight being forced on them (well, when I said 'writers', I mean 'writer', that being Ken Penders, who thrived without any kind of editorial oversight only for him to lose his shit and quit the moment he suddenly got an editor who gave a damn and SEGA started imposing restrictions on the writing).
The likes of the Zelda cartoon, Mario Bros. Super Show and Captain N would simply have never gotten made before the release of the N64. Then again, those sorts of cartoons are a relic of that age to begin with, and that's honestly for the best, making a show like that in the modern era would get a studio eviscerated by viewers and critics and the show itself would be considered just plain bad. An action-comedy Mario cartoon would absolutely still work, but it'd be a very different beast from the Super Show, and the likes of Zelda or Captain N would be inspired by Avatar or Voltron: Legendary Defender. Actually, fuck, I'd totally watch a Voltron-style reboot of Captain N with more faithful licensed characters.
Both Nintendo and SEGA have been less restrictive as of late, but Nintendo is likely imposing creative oversight over everything it makes licensing deals with - that Illumination Mario movie is going to quite different from the rest of their output, I'd wager.
Last edited:
They already get exactly as much attention as they deserve. Most people on this forum are aware they exist, which is saying something considering they are the product of a bizarre licensing arrangement on a commercial flop of a console. It doesn't deserve a place in any conversation regarding the core series, as they aren't Nintendo games and do not represent Nintendo's intentions for the series. If anything, the black sheep that should enter conversation more would have to be Zelda 2. Anyway, I get a lot of enjoyment from your topics brainchild, but this one seems a bit obtuse.
Nintendo needs to own up to their business decisions.
The CD-I games are part of the true canon whether they like it or not.
The CD-I games are part of the true canon whether they like it or not.
Hyrule Warriors has plenty of Nintendo involvement though, with Eiji Aonuma even being involved in promotion. The cdi Zelda's exists because Nintendo lost a couple court case and it was part of the settlement.
OP
OP
I appreciate the honest feedback. I guess my response is that, not all my threads will make everyone happy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well said. Sounds like your family/you may have owned a CD-i then?
It's funny, I really only know these games from the coverage they received in old gaming magazines. They always seemed to me like those animated shows you mentioned, well intentioned but flawed in execution.
The new Sonic Mania animated shorts seem born out of this same vein, but seems to have benefited from the missteps of the past.
Actually, no. I never even heard of the CD-i until much later when it was basically an internet meme at that point. I'm more familiar with a few classic VG cartoons and such as far as my childhood was concerned, mainly Mario Bros. Super Show and AoStH via Blockbuster. I just happen to be aware of a lot of this stuff after the fact, and I couldn't help but make that observation from my own experiences, since VG cartoons basically died after the 90s and all the VG movies since Mario Bros, aside from Resident Evil, have been either based on western franchises or were Japanese productions (FF: Spirits Within), though Mario and Sonic are apparently set to break that trend.
... Holy fuck, I remember when the official western Zelda series site used to actually have the CD-i games listed and also hosted actual fanfiction. Bloody hell.
What makes you think those games are worse than the CD-i games?
In a world where (as a big Zelda player) I've suffered Skyward Sword, Phantom Hourglass and Twilight Princess, the Zelda series is not so sacred that it couldn't include the CD-i games.
In other words, go all out, OP. I wont stop ya!
In other words, go all out, OP. I wont stop ya!
I mean they're basically a weird accident that resulted in a failed partnership between Nintendo and Phillips where Nintendo just gave them the licenses just because. Devoid of that very important piece of context, they're knock-offs, fan-fiction and made by people who don't get the series for a quick buck to bring a recognizable franchise to a failing piece of hardware that backfired in the worst possible way.
No.
Last edited:
No Nintendo had absolutely nothing to do with these games. They are essentially fan fiction and are rightly excluded from any serious discussion of the Zelda series as a whole. The CDi games are nothing more than mere curios
You can't state a "fact" and ask people how they feel about It.
You are doubting about it.
It's not a fact
You are doubting about it.
It's not a fact
They're a super interesting historical artifacts/relics, but they don't hold any real value as Zelda games. I wouldn't want them to be forgotten, but they're (in my eyes) distinct entities from the rest of the franchise, and don't think they're deserving of a spot on a Zelda ranking list. Neither do Link's Crossbow Training or Hyrule Warriors, for similar reasons, but the CD-i games are even further out
The best thing about the CD-i games is that they were the result of the passive aggressive deal Nintendo stuck with Philips to get back at Sony. It's like they got double burned.
That's like saying Zelda is racist because you almost never play as a Gerudo.
You shouldn't let your political views skew the facts. The CD-i games should remain ignored.