1600 replies to this topic

[Impossible]

I agree, that is a concern, yet I never thought there was any huge difference between the two. Link does look younger in the Oracles, but I wager most of the differences are artistic, and besides, how are we to say how long Link spent at sea? Just a page ago, Jumbie posted about the manual: "One day, when your training in foreign countries was over, you were on your way sailing back to beloved Hyrule." Nothing about only "months passing" in the Japanese version that I can see...

Because Link looks identical between ALttP and LA. He would have to age significantly between Oracles and LA.

And a couple of mistakes in art aren't what I was asking for there. Is there a time IN THE GAME when the mark isn't on Link's hand? It's there in every picture and cutscene showing his hands, as far as I remember. Even at the end of the game. So it wouldn't just disappear altogether.

And what might that be?

Firstly, there's the seamlessness in plot. In AoL, Ganon's minions are trying to revive him from death. In OoX, Ganon's minions are trying to revive him from death. It's especially logical when you consider that the Oracles were originally going to be remakes of the NES games, with the addition of one or more sequels. So much of that was transformed into OoS and OoA, that it seems extremely logical to suggest a close proximity to them. Even the story concept of the Oracles is probably based on what they originally intended to do. And you can talk about similarities between the Oracles and LA, but there are many between the NES games and Oracles, too, and at least one is actually plot-related and many are deliberate, not just because the Oracles reused everything from LA.

Also, there's Link's Triforce mark. There's only one other time in the series a mark appears without its bearer having the Triforce, which is AoL. So most likely, it appears for the same reason - Link is someone worthy of the Triforce. The king cast a spell to make that mark appear, so without AoL, there's absolutely no precedent for it. As well as that, Impa tells Link that the mark is a sign of a fated hero in Hylian legend. Tell me, when could that mark only be identified as the sign of a hero, and not someone with a Triforce piece? Only AoL actually explains why Impa says that. Aside from the unlikelihood of small details from OoT or TP being noticed or remembered, Ganondorf had a Triforce mark, and he's no hero. Hylian legend would be aware of the mark appearing on the hand of someone who has the Triforce, assuming their knowledge went back that far. It makes more sense if the reason for the mark's meaning is AoL, and that's the only game that explains it.

Both of the points about the Triforce mark can be speculated about, sure, but AoL still gives us the only reasons there are for the Triforce mark to appear on Link's hand without having a Triforce piece, and for it to be a sign of a hero. It's just neater that way, and less speculative.

Right now, you are no different from the people that cover their ears and yell "Ahhh! I'm not listening!" when told something that doesn't tickle their fancy. For now it is my judgment that the Oracles were meant as a prequel to LA, but that the game could work after ALttP as well. I don’t claim either theory to be absolute fact. Neither should you.

Acting like your theory is obvious and backed up by evidence when it isn't is just as bad. My placement of LA and the Oracles is NOT wrong, and it would be insane to say that it is. You're free to suggest your own theory, but don't act like there's been an official retcon that makes the old one wrong. No such thing exists. I'd like to see any other evidence for your theory, though.

The Oracles seem to be made with the intent of leading into LA (which not even ALttP was) and I take note of that.

And LA was made with the intent of following ALttP. Tell me, if this intent of the Oracles were so clear, why are there contradictions in it, too? They could easily have been avoided if they had LA in mind.

And I still highly doubt that Capcom would do anything to change the timeline Nintendo has made. Add to it, yes, but not alter it.

It is recently acquired info, I have yet to update the site with it.
The narrator says so during the introduction of week1.

This is interesting... How did you find out about this? It would be weird if LA were actually six years after ALttP, since Link would be far older, so I would still say that take precedence over a game that isn't really part of the timeline... So I wonder if it was really deliberate, or just a mistake or oversight.

Edited by Impossible, 03 April 2008 - 07:16 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

I don't think this time the other translations are too useful, because they seem to depend on English, rather than on Japanese. However, both in the Spanish and Italian translation, Ganon uses the word "basta", which unlike "enough" cannot mean what you think it means. I personally think it's clear that, at least the translator, thought it was said by Zelda.

Well, if that's the case and I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Of course, if anything, this thread has taught us is to never blindly trust translators...

If the Princess of Hyrule and all her power amounts to nothing, why was he making a big show about losing strength?

Because he's Ganon? His judgment on Zelda's powers are about as useless as his claims that Link would never be able to defeat him.

Not only is that not at all in character, the dialogue isn't even remotely like anything else Ganon says during the course of the game.

It doesn't sound a lot like something Zelda would say either, but is true he took a very different tone when they sealed him in the end, so maybe you do have a point.

Because Link looks identical between ALttP and LA. He would have to age significantly between Oracles and LA.

So? Even he is older in LA, we have already established that it is simply not an issue. All of the Links look pretty much identical anyway, and there is a difference between the new artwork for LA and the old images from ALttP.

And a couple of mistakes in art aren't what I was asking for there.

Dismissing official artwork as being riddled with 'mistakes' without any good reason to do so is not very smart. It just makes you look desperate.

Is there a time IN THE GAME when the mark isn't on Link's hand? It's there in every picture and cutscene showing his hands, as far as I remember. Even at the end of the game. So it wouldn't just disappear altogether.

Why not? There is no way of telling how this kind of Triforce mark works - you're just speculating. I'm not without reason to think it is not present at all times - you have only reason to believe it is there in those scenes where it is seen.

Firstly, there's the seamlessness in plot.

That's no reason why the Oracles should be placed after AoL; Ganon has been worshipped and revived before. And is OoT, orginally "ALttP in 3D" and still sharing a good deal of similarities with it, also a sequel to the game it was originally based on (and now possibly not even connected to)?

Also, there's Link's Triforce mark.

Yes, people have said that, yet the King's spell was very specific and spoke only of the Hero that would find the ToC, which Link did not do in the Oracles (even if this was the original intent, it was still not the final intent) What's more, TP introduced the idea that the "normal" mark was visible at all times where previously it had not been seen, and we still do not know how Link "inherited" the ToC - no game explains that - and indeed the Oracles are much the same in that we do not know how Link came to possess the mark (though it is implied it is because he had been chosen by the Triforce).

Acting like your theory is obvious and backed up by evidence when it isn't is just as bad. My placement of LA and the Oracles is NOT wrong, and it would be insane to say that it is. You're free to suggest your own theory, but don't act like there's been an official retcon that makes the old one wrong. No such thing exists. I'd like to see any other evidence for your theory, though.

Good thing I have done nothing of the sort, then. And as for other evidence, like I said, it is mostly thematic. The ending I say speaks for itself, as does the fact that it works so well as a prequel. In a way, it is much the same as how PH connects to the Four Swords games without actually mentioning them.

And LA was made with the intent of following ALttP. Tell me, if this intent of the Oracles were so clear, why are there contradictions in it, too? They could easily have been avoided if they had LA in mind.

I still don't see any.

And I still highly doubt that Capcom would do anything to change the timeline Nintendo has made. Add to it, yes, but not alter it.

They were lead by Nintendo employes, and were certainly bold enough to put a ship and seagulls in the ending, which DOES lead most people to LA. And hey, if you want to go with the man himself*, LA could take place after any game.

*Personally, I recognize the fact that Miyamoto hasn't worked on a Zelda story since the original LoZ, but...

Edited by Hero of Legend, 03 April 2008 - 08:02 PM.

[Fyxe]

This is interesting... How did you find out about this? It would be weird if LA were actually six years after ALttP, since Link would be far older, so I would still say that take precedence over a game that isn't really part of the timeline... So I wonder if it was really deliberate, or just a mistake or oversight.

It just means that the BS-X game takes place six years after ALttP, LA doesn't necessarily occur at the same time.

[Raien]

It just means that the BS-X game takes place six years after ALttP, LA doesn't necessarily occur at the same time.

The point is that Link could not have been returning to Hyrule before the period six years after ALTTP, in which Ganon is revived and the Hero of the BS game is brought in to save him. Thus, Link in LA must be at least six years older than he was in ALTTP.

Edited by jhurvid, 03 April 2008 - 07:45 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

The narrator says so during the introduction of week1.

This is interesting... How did you find out about this? It would be weird if LA were actually six years after ALttP, since Link would be far older

By... having the narrator's speech translated? Anyway, it should be noted that ALttP/LA Link is pretty much an adult, and (especially if we are to look at characters like Nabooru and Impa in OoT) adults in videogame don't age much in the span of six years

[Fyxe]

The point is that Link could not have been returning to Hyrule before the period six years after ALTTP, in which Ganon is revived and the Hero of the BS game is brought in to save him. Thus, Link in LA must be at least six years older than he was in ALTTP.

Who says he had to return? Who says he survived? Who says he made it back rather than engaging in an extended series of adventures? Who says he didn't leave again?

[Arturo]

He's said to be trapped in a dream by one of the enemies you can transform by using magic powder (the electric ones, I just don't remember their name).

[Raien]

Who says he had to return? Who says he survived? Who says he made it back rather than engaging in an extended series of adventures? Who says he didn't leave again?

It's generally assumed that Link returned to Hyrule, because that was his initial plan. Even if he was taken in the other direction by a passing ship, he could always find another ship back to Hyrule. There's no reason to assume anything more obstructs his return.

[Jumbie]

There's a line I found on Zelda Katsu about the hero being unable to escape the dream.

That's said by a Cukeman (the converted Buzzblobs who talk rubbish in ALttP), and as such it's an easter egg. Why? Because no character (except the Wind Fish) could possibly know Link was trapped inside a dream. In any case, we saw at the end of LA that Link did leave the dream, so the Cukeman would've been lying in the first place. There's no need for him to mention that Link "can't leave the dream" when we see in LA that Link does *everything* to leave it, and succeeds after what can't have been much more than a few days. Not to mention that dreams happen much faster than the same events would in real life.

All that line shows is that LA was originally intended as ALttP's sequel, which was reconsidered in 2001 though.

And it's still basically canon that LA is a sequel to ALttP, the evidence that this changes isn't really strong enough.

There's no canon evidence for ALttP+LA. The only game that could've given some is LA, and it didn't. Oracles, on the other hand, gives a massive implication of OoX+LA through the ending scene.

And I still highly doubt that Capcom would do anything to change the timeline Nintendo has made. Add to it, yes, but not alter it.

In Zelda, adding to the timeline is equivalent to altering it, because the Zelda timeline is not as fix as other series'.
Within the involved games (ALttP and LA) there was nothing they retconned, anyway.

the Oracles were always meant to be an independent story separate from Nintendo's.

What?! I may refer you to what you say about LoZ+AoL > OoX...

3. Link in the Oracles is a kid, like Child Link in OoT and MM. In ALttP and LA, he?s a teenager, and is clearly older, based on the cutscenes in all the Game Boy Zeldas, and official art. His age couldn?t just jump around like that.

Oracles Link is not as young as in OoT+MM, it's just the art style. In LA's intro and Oracles' cutscenes, he doesn't look too different.

4. Oracle Link has a Triforce mark on his hand, but it?s not there in ALttP or in LA. Like his age, it would have to change back and forth.

There just are no close-ups on his hand within LA?

6. The boat Link sails off on isn?t really the same as the one in LA anyway, and you would think it would be if the connection were deliberate. The body of the boat itself may have been reused from LA to save effort, but the sails are completely different.

No, the only difference in the sails is that in Oracles they are rolled out, because Link wants to gain speed, and in LA they are rolled in, because Link is in a thunderstorm... >_>
Apart from that, the ship sprites are completely identical; the colour difference being due to opposite lighting in the two games:
 Oracles_LA.PNG   1.49K   30 downloads

The website was written more recently than the manual, which is even more "outdated".

As long as the site was written before 2001, Oracles can override it. And LA's manual doesn't compare to its website - one is canon, the other is just an interpretation of canon.

Even KnS's LA references are stronger than the Oracles'.

As I just said, what the Cukeman says is contradictory with LA rather than helpful.

Seagulls in the ending though, that's pretty obvious.

Oh! A good point I haven't seen brought up before!^^

Anyway, why does it feel like I've been over this before?

Yeah, we really should leave it now. The only reason I bothered to repeat these age-old points is because I haven't debated this issue with Impossible before.

Basically, I want to know if Vaati "died" or not (didn't seem like it) and who says the *???* lines. People say it's Zelda, but I don't think so. It could tell us a bit of where Zelda and Ganon stand in relation to each other. So, when Jumbie has time, he could look into it.

Nice suggestion, I will do those parts soon!

Edited by Jumbie, 03 April 2008 - 10:15 PM.

[Impossible]

That's said by a Cukeman (the converted Buzzblobs who talk rubbish in ALttP), and as such it's an easter egg. Why? Because no character (except the Wind Fish) could possibly know Link was trapped inside a dream. In any case, we saw at the end of LA that Link did leave the dream, so the Cukeman would've been lying in the first place. There's no need for him to mention that Link "can't leave the dream" when we see in LA that Link does *everything* to leave it, and succeeds after what can't have been much more than a few days. Not to mention that dreams happen much faster than the same events would in real life.

All that line shows is that LA was originally intended as ALttP's sequel, which was reconsidered in 2001 though.

I think you're misinterpreting it. Link can't leave the dream, as in, he's currently trapped inside the dream. He can't leave at will, so LA is happening at the same time as KnS.

There's no canon evidence for ALttP+LA. The only game that could've given some is LA, and it didn't. Oracles, on the other hand, gives a massive implication of OoX+LA through the ending scene.

The manual is canon. KnS is arguably canon. And it was definitely official.

In Zelda, adding to the timeline is equivalent to altering it, because the Zelda timeline is not as fix as other series'.
Within the involved games (ALttP and LA) there was nothing they retconned, anyway.

It would retcon the original point of LA, though. Hell, Link didn't save Hyrule in the Oracles. Even if you can interpret it as Hyrule's "peace", we know that the intent of that line was clearly that he saved Hyrule, since it was after ALttP.

What?! I may refer you to what you say about LoZ+AoL > OoX...

That's not the same. The Oracles are a separate story, just continuing from something that was already there. They don't have the same Link, nor do they change anything about our understanding of those games. Which the Oracles shouldn't be able to do.

Oracles Link is not as young as in OoT+MM, it's just the art style. In LA's intro and Oracles' cutscenes, he doesn't look too different.

He's clearly a kid. He's even called one in the games.

There just are no close-ups on his hand within LA?

There are plenty of chances to show the mark. It's not there. It's ridiculous to suggest that it could have been at the time. And yes, there are close-ups on his hand. There's one in the opening cutscene, and probably more later on (like the ending). This whole idea that the mark magically disappears whenever it's convenient is ridiculous. There's no reason given for what it basically a birthmark to vanish. And it never happens in the game. The first cutscenes in the game have the mark, the last ones do. It should be present at some point in LA.

No, the only difference in the sails is that in Oracles they are rolled out, because Link wants to gain speed, and in LA they are rolled in, because Link is in a thunderstorm... >_>
Apart from that, the ship sprites are completely identical; the colour difference being due to opposite lighting in the two games:
 Oracles_LA.PNG   1.49K   30 downloads

Actually, I disagree... The shape of the sails isn't the same. The NUMBER of sails isn't the same. I don't understand how rolling up the sails in the Oracles picture can result in what we see in LA.

As long as the site was written before 2001, Oracles can override it. And LA's manual doesn't compare to its website - one is canon, the other is just an interpretation of canon.

You can't disprove anything about the web site. The site at least could have been updated. And ANYTHING written before 2001 has just as little credibility, you can't choose which things count. LA's manual still means it's a sequel to ALttP, that was the only meaning it was written with at the time. The ONLY one. Changing that is going against creator intent. If you're going to say that the Oracles are now a prequel to LA, go for it. But ambiguities in LA's manual are not evidence of that.

As I just said, what the Cukeman says is contradictory with LA rather than helpful.

There's also the fact that Link being away from Hyrule is a direct reference to LA. And what the Cukeman says isn't contradictory; Link isn't in Hyrule because he's trapped in a drea.

Edited by Impossible, 03 April 2008 - 11:06 PM.

[LionHarted]

Random thought: Zelda seems to know Link in ALttP (we can't assume Link introduces himself to her, since she gives no indication of this, and Link doesn't talk), yet she still introduces herself when she telepathically contacts Link (we can't assume she is reaching out to anyone else, aside perhaps from his uncle). Could the introduction in ALttP and in OoX simply be a way of indicating to the player that this is Princess Zelda? It's also sort of implied that Link should know Impa, but she also has to introduce herself.

[Raien]

One strong connection between ALTTP and LA is the form that the Nightmares take in the final battle. Rather than taking completely random forms, or the forms of previous bosses that Link had to face, they took the forms of bosses that Link fought in ALTTP. I see this as meaning they are taking the form of Link's own nightmares, which would mean LA follows ALTTP.

Edited by jhurvid, 04 April 2008 - 07:02 AM.

[LionHarted]

One strong connection between ALTTP and LA is the form that the Nightmares take in the final battle. Rather than taking completely random forms, or the forms of previous bosses that Link had to face, they took the forms of bosses that Link fought in ALTTP. I see this as meaning they are taking the form of Link's own nightmares, which would mean LA follows ALTTP.

If we are to say that the dream in LA draws on Link's reality in ALttP, then we must take into account the countless enemies that do not appear in ALttP but that are prominent in Oracles (Vire, etc.).

[Raien]

If we are to say that the dream in LA draws on Link's reality in ALttP, then we must take into account the countless enemies that do not appear in ALttP but that are prominent in Oracles (Vire, etc.).

Given that the monsters on Koholint apparently appeared as soon as Link set foot on Koholint Island, it does make sense that the Nightmares were drawing from Link's dark memories.

As for the original characters that later appeared in Oracles, I believe they are cameos like Jabu-Jabu. To be quite honest, I don't believe anything in Oracles is reliable for timeline theorising, which is why I prefer not to involve Oracles in the timeline.

[Arturo]

I am going to ask a question...

Do we really know if OoX Link cannot be ALttP Link? I mean, those parts could have been mistranslated

[LionHarted]

I think it's kinda hard to mistranslate "I am Zelda", especially since it's been seen in most games. XD

But really, the introduction seems to be more for the player.

Edited by LionHarted, 04 April 2008 - 08:27 AM.

[Duke Serkol]

the ship sprites are completely identical; the colour difference being due to opposite lighting in the two games:
 Oracles_LA.PNG   1.49K   30 downloads

I really love this comparison. I consider it the strongest point toward a retcon together with the thematic seagulls thing (pointed out again by HoL), the last minute mention by Zelda that Link has become the Legendary Hero and the fact that LA DX was released shortly before OoX.
...but to play devil's advocate, the castle in the intro is also identical to that of OoT, and very different from that of ALttP...

That's said by a Cukeman (the converted Buzzblobs who talk rubbish in ALttP), and as such it's an easter egg. Why? Because no character (except the Wind Fish) could possibly know Link was trapped inside a dream. In any case, we saw at the end of LA that Link did leave the dream, so the Cukeman would've been lying in the first place. There's no need for him to mention that Link "can't leave the dream" when we see in LA that Link does *everything* to leave it, and succeeds after what can't have been much more than a few days. Not to mention that dreams happen much faster than the same events would in real life.

All that line shows is that LA was originally intended as ALttP's sequel, which was reconsidered in 2001 though.

I think you're misinterpreting it. Link can't leave the dream, as in, he's currently trapped inside the dream. He can't leave at will, so LA is happening at the same time as KnS.

I agree with Impossible on this.
Also precisely because of its Easter Eggy nature, the Cukeman should be considered more reliable than any other character. It knows things none could normally know as Jumbie points out, and unlike other characters, it cannot be wrong because anything it says is right out of the programmers' mouths, not something it learned as a character (and thus not something it could have been misinformed about).
So, we know for a fact that at least back in 1997, that's what the programmers thought. It's possible that this may have been retconned now, but back then there's no question that LA happened after ALttP (six years later according to AST).

Anyway, on the six years thing, there is something we may want to consider. AST was broadcasted in 97. ALttP came out in 91, six years earlier.
So while it is possible that they decided to set AST six years after ALttP (especially since the hero of the game is the player's BS-X avatar), it's also possible that when the narrator says "Six years ago, Link the Hero threw down the king of evil, Ganon." He means six years time in OUR world only.
...but I don't think so, because the next sentence is "Since then, the land of Hyrule has basked in a time of tranquillity."

Edited by Duke Serkol, 04 April 2008 - 10:00 AM.

[Fyxe]

The Oracle games borrowing and modifying sprites and in-game art from Link's Awakening?

NEVAAAR~

[Duke Serkol]

And music. Without even remixing it

[Raien]

So here's the big question(s).

Do we believe that LA follows its original intended placement after ALTTP; symbolised by the Nightmare forms in LA's final battle?
Or do we believe that Oracles has retconned that placement, based on the images depicted in Oracles' ending?

[Jumbie]

The manual is canon.

Canon, but fails to give any conclusive evidence on ALttP.

And ANYTHING written before 2001 has just as little credibility, you can't choose which things count.

I can, it's called sorting out canon sources from non-canon sources.

But ambiguities in LA's manual are not evidence of that.

I *never* implied that. I said right away that the Japanese manual gives no evidence for any placement - which is why I want this debate to stop now.

One strong connection between ALTTP and LA is the form that the Nightmares take in the final battle. Rather than taking completely random forms, or the forms of previous bosses that Link had to face, they took the forms of bosses that Link fought in ALTTP. I see this as meaning they are taking the form of Link's own nightmares, which would mean LA follows ALTTP.

This is not a connection at all. The blob comes from AoL. Moldorm and Lanmola were in LoZ, too. A wizard you had to defeat by repelling his magic was in AoL, too. Ganon was in LoZ, too. The Deth-I was new.

Given that the monsters on Koholint apparently appeared as soon as Link set foot on Koholint Island, it does make sense that the Nightmares were drawing from Link's dark memories.

The characters in the Wind Fish's dream are taken from the collective memories of any Links that have ever lived, which gives a retroactive reason why Deth-I resembles Vaati / Bellum, or why Kanalet Castle looks like Ikana Castle. The Wind Fish, being the deity he is, should be able to do this.

As for the original characters that later appeared in Oracles, I believe they are cameos like Jabu-Jabu.

Are you serious? Jabu-Jabu is not more cameo than Link himself is...

So here's the big question(s).

Do we believe that LA follows its original intended placement after ALTTP; symbolised by the Nightmare forms in LA's final battle?
Or do we believe that Oracles has retconned that placement, based on the images depicted in Oracles' ending?

For me personally, the second. But could we now please agree on that LA's placement is not provable?

Things about AST, on the other hand, are fine to discuss here, since well, it's the Translation thread.

Edited by Jumbie, 04 April 2008 - 12:33 PM.

[Raien]

This is not a connection at all. The blob comes from AoL. Moldorm and Lanmola were in LoZ, too. A wizard you had to defeat by repelling his magic was in AoL, too. Ganon was in LoZ, too. The Deth-I was new.

Although the bosses had appeared in different forms on the NES, it doesn't change the fact that the Dethl forms were taken from ALTTP. The Ganon form summons bats by spinning the Trident, which is from ALTTP. The Agahnim form sends two types of magic spells; one of which can be deflected, which is from ALTTP. Moldorm is defeated by hitting his tail, which is from ALTTP and LA. The only form that doesn't directly resemble a boss from ALTTP is the blob, but then even as a normal enemy, there's no reason to associate it more with AoL than ALTTP. As for the final form, clearly it is meant to be a "true" form, since it reveals the true weakpoint of the boss.

The characters in the Wind Fish's dream are taken from the collective memories of any Links that have ever lived, which gives a retroactive reason why Deth-I resembles Vaati / Bellum, or why Kanalet Castle looks like Ikana Castle. The Wind Fish, being the deity he is, should be able to do this.

Dethl resembles Vaati and Bellum because it has an eye for a weakspot? For goodness sake, the eye is a standard weakness for most bosses and enemies in the Zelda series. You might as well argue that the Fused Shadows are Vaati, since the bosses that manifest also have eyes as weakspots.

Are you serious? Jabu-Jabu is not more cameo than Link himself is...

Are you serious? Jabu-Jabu is an immortal deity that embodies the elemental magic of water that sources the endless water supply that comes from Lake Hylia. Yet for some reason, he is now a child living on an island away from Hyrule along with an alternate King Zora from OoT. It just screams cameo.

For me personally, the second. But could we now please agree on that LA's placement is not provable?

That is likely how the topic will end, but let's get a bit of finality to people's opinions in the meantime.

Edited by jhurvid, 04 April 2008 - 12:50 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

This is not a connection at all. The blob comes from AoL. Moldorm and Lanmola were in LoZ, too. A wizard you had to defeat by repelling his magic was in AoL, too. Ganon was in LoZ, too. The Deth-I was new.

One more thing: I should point out that all of the Nightmares seen in LA, save for DethI (obviously the shadow of "Vaati"), are also fought in the Oracles - yet more evidence that the developers were concerned with enabling continuity between the games.

Dethl resembles Vaati and Bellum because it has an eye for a weakspot? For goodness sake, the eye is a standard weakness for most bosses and enemies in the Zelda series. You might as well argue that the Fused Shadows are Vaati, since the bosses that manifest also have eyes as weakspots.

DethI (spelled with a capital "I" and pronounced "Death Eye") is obviously Vaati because, well, they look and fight exactly the same: An eye surrounded by blob of darkness (a typical Japanese demon, I admit) with two arms spinning around him. Capcom based Vaati?s design on DethI, no question about it, and though it does not matter much, it adds to the story by providing an origin for the final Nightmare. I, for one, have no doubt that was at least part of their intentions.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 April 2008 - 01:15 PM.

[Raien]

One more thing: I should point out that all of the Nightmares seen in LA, save for DethI (obviously the shadow of Vaati), are also fought in the Oracles - yet more evidence that the developers were concerned with enabling continuity between the games.

Or that they were recycling bosses, like most OoS bosses were recycled from LoZ.

DethI (spelled with a capital "I" and pronounced "Death Eye") is obviously Vaati because, well, they look and fight exactly the same: An eye surrounded by blob of darkness (a typical Japanese demon, I admit) with two arms spinning around him. Capcom based Vaati’s design on DethI, no question about it, and though it does not matter much, it adds to the story by providing an origin for the final Nightmare. I, for one, have no doubt that was at least part of their intentions.

Zelda looks identical in TWW and TMC; they must be the same!

Capcom might have based Vaati's design on Deth-I, but that doesn't make them related in the timeline. It just doesn't make sense; Death-I is the incarnation of the Nightmares that the Wind Fish created in his sleep, who then took control of the Wind Fish's dreams. There is no possible way to bring Vaati into this storyline, unless as I suggested, the Wind Fish met Vaati and Deth-I was created based on Vaati's appearance. And I don't think Deth-I is a manifestation of Link's nightmares because it is the form that shows Deth-I's true weakpoint, indicated with a new BGM. It says to me "You've defeated all of Link's nightmares; now defeat the true nightmare!"

Edited by jhurvid, 04 April 2008 - 01:27 PM.

[Jumbie]

Are you serious? Jabu-Jabu is an immortal deity that embodies the elemental magic of water that sources the endless water supply that comes from Lake Hylia.

Immortal deity? No, he's a spirit, playing in the same league as the Deku Tree and Valoo. The Deku Tree wasn't immortal either.
Elemental magic of water? Isn't the embodiment of that the Water Element in TMC?
Sources the endless water supply? Then where does the endless water of our world's rivers come from? Mmm, mysterious...

Yet for some reason, he is now a child living on an island away from Hyrule along with an alternate King Zora from OoT. It just screams cameo.

This could be the same Jabu-Jabu as in OoT, just as a child. In fact, the Zoras' absence in TMC can be explained by them having lived in Labrynna.

One more thing: I should point out that all of the Nightmares seen in LA, save for DethI (obviously the shadow of Vaati), are also fought in the Oracles - yet more evidence that the developers were concerned with enabling continuity between the games.

Or that they were recycling bosses, like most OoS bosses were recycled from LoZ.

Aha, so the Nightmare also recycled ALttP bosses? How good we agree.

And I still don't see how being black and having an eye connects Dethl to Vaati in the Zelda storyline.

It's not that alone. It's the accumulation of single eye, round body, long arms, and black colour.

[Hero of Legend]

Or that they were recycling bosses, like most OoS bosses were recycled from LoZ.

Couldn't the same technically be said for LA?

Zelda looks identical in TWW and TMC; they must be the same!

Well, in a way they are. I believe all Links and Zeldas look about the same anyway (much more similar than what the different artwork suggests) as indicated in OoT and TMC. I know your point was that similar appearances are no guarantee of a relationship, but in the case of the Nightmares, that's sort of the whole idea, isn't it?

Capcom might have based Vaati's design on Deth-I, but that doesn't make them related in the timeline. It just doesn't make sense; Death-I is the incarnation of the Nightmares that the Wind Fish created in his sleep, who then took control of the Wind Fish's dreams. There is no possible way to bring Vaati into this storyline, unless as I suggested, the Wind Fish met Vaati and Deth-I was created based on Vaati's appearance. And I don't think Deth-I is a manifestation of Link's nightmares because it is the form that shows Deth-I's true weakpoint, indicated with a new BGM. It says to me "You've defeated all of Link's nightmares; now defeat the true nightmare!"

Well, Jumbie mentioned Bellum. My guess is because he thinks the Wind Fish is the Ocean King. Even if they are not the same, it proves that such a deity could run into the likes of Vaati. Of course it is speculation, but I doubt PH and its references to both LA and the FS series were mere chance.

And I always thought it was weird that the music changed to the standard boss battle BGM during the Deth-I battle.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 April 2008 - 01:50 PM.

[Raien]

Immortal deity? No, he's a spirit, playing in the same league as the Deku Tree and Valoo. The Deku Tree wasn't immortal either.

The Deku Tree wasn't invincible, so he could die. But he couldn't die of old age, so that makes him immortal. And when he was killed by evil forces, he was reincarnated as soon as Link rid Kokiri Forest of that evil. Since Jabu-Jabu was protected by the Zoras in Oracles, there's no reason why he should have died and/or become a child.

Elemental magic of water? Isn't the embodiment of that the Water Element in TMC?

Jabu-Jabu is the living embodiment of the magic; just as Link and Zelda are the living embodiments of courage and wisdom.

Sources the endless water supply? Then where does the endless water of our world's rivers come from? Mmm, mysterious...

All things in the world are sourced by magic, according to the Zelda mythology; water is no exception.

This could be the same Jabu-Jabu as in OoT, just as a child. In fact, the Zoras' absence in TMC can be explained by them having lived in Labrynna.

Aha, so the Nightmare also recycled ALttP bosses? How good we agree.

The problem that I have with the Oracles games is that they throw around characters and bosses from old Zelda games, but they don't really connect them to other games in ways that can be seen as a direct progression. We have Twinrova randomly back from the dead, Jabu-Jabu randomly as a child, an Agahnim-like boss randomly appearing in a dungeon, other LoZ bosses randomly appearing around OoS, the Master Sword is randomly owned by an NPC, Windmill man, etc. There's nothing there that says to me "This character/boss was included to lead into or follow a previous game"; it just says to me "This character/boss was included as a fun cameo with no storyline connection to other games". And any attempt to explain these cameos just comes across as fanfic to me because of the lack of actual connection.

LA does not have this string of cameos from all over the place, and the appearance of old enemies has been associated with Link's dark memories. When I see ALTTP's bosses, I can more easily feel that this relates to the storyline and not just a series of random cameos. It's the typical case of "cry wolf"; throw in too many cameos and you can't trust what the developers may have intended to be real timeline connections.

It's not that alone. It's the accumulation of single eye, round body, long arms, and black colour.

I cite my comparison of Zelda in TWW and TMC. Looking the same means nothing if the storyline makes it impossible for them to be related (in the manner you suggest).

Well, in a way they are. I believe all Links and Zeldas look about the same anyway (much more similar than what the different artwork suggests) as indicated in OoT and TMC. I know your point was that similar appearances are no guarantee of a relationship, but in the case of the Nightmares, that's sort of the whole idea, isn't it?

In order for the Nightmare to take on the form of Vaati, either the Wind Fish or Link needs to have faced Vaati. Link did not fight Vaati in ALTTP (and he would not realistically be having nightmares about a nemesis that a past Link faced), and it is speculation to assume the Wind Fish met Vaati. Even if Vaati's design was based on Deth-I, I don't think there is any reason to believe that they are related in the timeline.

And I always thought it was weird that the music changed to the standard boss battle BGM during the Deth-I battle.

Well, the change in BGM music normally symbolises an important transformation in the boss. So what makes Deth-I's final form special compared to his previous forms? I argue it is his true form; the final battle.

Edited by jhurvid, 04 April 2008 - 03:20 PM.

[LionHarted]

Jabu-Jabu is the living embodiment of the magic; just as Link and Zelda are the living embodiments of courage and wisdom.

Hold on.

What?

All things in the world are sourced by magic, according to the Zelda mythology; water is no exception.

Act of god =/= Magic.

[Showsni]

Jabu-Jabu's just a big fish in OoT. He doesn't show any remotely deity like aspects. I just think the Zora are deluded.

Maybe Link's trapped on Koholint for six years... who's to say how the Wind Fish's dream works?

I think ALttP - LA is still the best place to put it. Link's sleeping when he hears a voice, and instantly thinks of Princess Zelda... ALttP reference much? Besides, KnS pretty much confirms it.

[Raien]

Jabu-Jabu's just a big fish in OoT. He doesn't show any remotely deity like aspects. I just think the Zora are deluded.

Despite his depiction in OoT, there's no reason to believe the Zora are deluded about Jabu-Jabu's abilities; why would they come to such a conclusion had not he not shown his abilities? Every element has a living embodiment; the Deku Tree for forest, Cyclos and Zephos for Wind, Valoo for Sky, the Light Spirits for Light. Jabu-Jabu (and/or Jabun) follows the patten for Water.