The thought of a multiplayer Zelda game makes some fans squirm with agony. They have a good reason, too. Four Swords, the first official multiplayer Zelda title, was a taste of things to come. Along with its sequel, Four Swords Adventures, many fans felt that multiplayer Zelda was simply an abomination because the games "cheapened" the series. Yet, there are still some fans who believe that a multiplayer Zelda game could be just what the doctor ordered.

If you have not played Four Swords for the GameBoy Advance, you aren't missing much. This is not to say the game is as bad as the CD-i installments of the franchise, but the game is a big lacking. For starters, to actually play the game, you need at least two copies of the game, two GameBoy Advances, and one GBA link cable. Total price around the time of this game's release to enjoy it: $250+. The cost of a GBA unit was around $99 dollars then (pre-SP), and the cost of the game was 24.99 MSRP. I was being generous because I forgot how much the link cable cost, and I am sure it was an excess of 10 dollars.

Imagine traveling a land like this with friends.

Let's say, though, that you already owned a GBA and had a friend within reasonable distance with a GBA as well. You both love Zelda, so it only cost you 25 bucks for a game each, and you split the cost of the link cable. That's pretty affordable, and that was what Nintendo was banking on. Fortunately, most people did have a GBA and were Zelda fans. Unfortunately, most people could not find a physical person to come over to play with them. I mean, you really are going to go out in public with this goofy connection cord to play a Zelda game? Sadly, the concept was too ambitious without the aid of some form of online play, which thankfully we have now.

Four Swords Adventures was even worse, but Nintendo included a single-player mode. To actually play the multiplayer mode, you need a GBA and a GBA to GCN link cable for each. It was also a GCN game, which meant you were starting at 49.99 just for the game, but it did come with a link cable. Still, the same problem persisted as before - it is not hard to physically get somebody to come join in for the majority of people, and it is rather embarrassing for most gamers who have any sense of self-consciousness. So, we saw two attempts at multiplayer Zelda that seemingly failed. Both were poor sellers, and both were not critically acclaimed. I personally enjoyed FSA, but Four Swords was simply an afterthought.

It's no wonder fans cringe at the thought of another multiplayer Zelda. But when they think about one, they usually think about the Four Swords series, which conjures up imagery of a "Mario Party" for some reason. Shadow Battle, the competitive battle game, was nothing to write home about, and for those who actually tried out Navi Trackers, I feel your pain. Still, with this entire negative backlash for multiplayer Zelda games, could one ever really work, especially now that Nintendo supports online play?

When Aonuma confirmed Zelda DS would have online play, my mind began to race with the possibilities. At that time, though, all of us thought this was going to be another Four Swords installment, so many were preparing for the worst. Then Aonuma confirmed the DS title would not be a Four Swords title, and players began to have more faith. Could this be an online version of Ocarina of Time? Could it be a fighter like Soul Calibur II? You see, Link and company have appeared in multiplayer games before, but they were all fighting games, and they all were incarnations of the "mature" look from Ocarina of Time. Zelda-only multiplayer games employed the cutesy look of The Wind Waker, which some fans still have not gotten over.

So while dreams ran wild, Nintendo dropped a bombshell just in time to depress us even more after the Twilight Princess delay. Weekly Famitsu published a screen shot of a DS game featuring Tingle entitled "Tingle RPG". Fan outcry wasn't as harsh as I thought it would be, but I think this was because most fans believed another Zelda DS title was in the works and that this title was just a filler. Some said they believed it wasn't even going to come out outside of Japan. But now, with the drought of information on all things Zelda, fans are beginning to fear the worse. Instead of Four Swords on DS, we might be stuck with a Tingle game…and worse…it could be multiplayer.

There is some light at the end of the tunnel, though. Smash for Revolution is due out sometime, and you know it will feature the cast of Hylian Heroes. Though it is not an exclusive Zelda title, it is still a great example of how multiplayer Zelda could work - via a fighting game. Another interesting opportunity presents itself in the form of speculation over Twilight Princess and the Revolution. After seeing the concepts people think will be applied to Zelda with Revolution, in particular first-person mode, coupled with the Ocarina of Time mod for Halo CE, I think perhaps some form of a first-person multiplayer Zelda could work out, especially if it was co-op and versus.

Imagine having to race through a temple together, solving puzzles in 3D just like you were there, using the controllers to swing your sword, push blocks, shoot arrows, and hookshot to distance places. Then at the end, after a grueling boss battle requiring team work, the temple opens up into a death match in which the winner claims the temple prize. Sounds pretty cool, but I am sure some fans do not want Zelda going the first-person route. Was that our last hope?

No. There is another.

Depending on your philosophical stance on Zelda, the term "MMORPG" is a death wish or a godsend. Some fans believe an MMORPG would ruin the series because nobody could play as Link, and the game would be too removed from the basic gameplay that makes it so wonderful. Others say it would be the greatest thing since the hookshot. Exploring a massive Hyrule (or beyond) with friends online, teaming up to go on epic adventures to defeat monsters, clear dungeons, or seek rare items. We all know about the existing big three in MMORPGS (FF XII, WOW, EQ), and we all know that they all operate almost identically - though you move in real-time, the battles are still turn-based and done through a command system or menu.

Fans argue this type of gameplay is not Zelda. Imagine a Zelda game made just like Final Fantasy X. Sure, it looks cool, but could you stand playing Zelda by just walking around into random battles, and then fighting via a menu? Perhaps it doesn't have to be this way. If you've ever played the Tales of Symphonia, Tales of Legendia or Star Ocean: Till the End of Time, you may be familiar with this real-time battle system which is still plausible for a MMORPG. You still use your controller to perform attacks and to defend on the fly, but you still incorporate team-strategy and the principles of basic RPGs like a level system.

Another point I'd like to touch on is the personality you can create in MMORPGs. Zelda is very personal. We all have our own interpretation of it. While we all can't be Link or Zelda or Ganondorf in the MMORPG, we all could create our own "personas", our own heroes that would take the place of the character we imagined for Link. It's the perfect multiplayer model for a series like Zelda, allowing huge open-ended exploration and adventures, and almost endless possibilities for new experiences.

- Mike "TSA" Damiani is the Senior Editor and Owner of The Hylia

Discuss this article in the forums.