I love any chance I get to play Ocarina of Time, but this is different. A.) It's portable, B.) It's got enhanced graphics, and C.) It's in 3D!
I'm really enjoying the game so far. I've just gotten past the Water Temple (not nearly as difficult as I remember or have heard other people griping about). The 3D isn't intrusive, and doesn't rely on gimmicks. It increases the overall depth of the game, and compliments the game's established efforts at creating depth in the scene.
I've seen several small aspects of the game that I've enjoyed immensely. For example, in the first scene after Link's opening dream, we see the Deku Tree talking to Navi. In the original version, this was a fixed, uninteresting camera angle of Navi in front of the Deku Tree. In OoT 3D, the camera follows Navi as she enters the grove, and cuts to different angles to make things interesting. The camera in various cutscenes behaves in a much more sophisticated fashion than in the original.
The design of the settings is much improved as well. Shops and buildings have much more personality, especially when you see the insides. Shops have various merchandise and such scattered about, and houses have individualistic identities that reflect their owners in some ways. The Mask Shop even reflects some small references to OoT's sequel, Majora's Mask.
The interface is much improved - the dual screen works quite well. Along with that is the inclusion of the iron boots as an item rather than a piece of equipment - this made the Water Temple SO much easier.
Nintendo also included a new feature, objects called Sheikah Stones. They resemble Gossip Stones, yet they are placed at key points (next to Link's House in the Kokiri Forest and inside the Temple of Time, from what I can tell). They allow the player to view hints about specific areas if they are having trouble. I haven't used it (hey, I don't need to, I've played the game so many times I've practically got it memorized).
I'll post again whenever I start the Master Quest after beating the main game. It shouldn't be too long at this rate.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Continuity in The Legend of Zelda (Part II - Timeline Theory/Theories)
So, we've already discussed the Replay Theory. Now the obvious next step is, of course, some sort of Normal Timeline Theory. There are several ideas on how the Zelda games may fit together chronologically.
BS Zelda's Timeline theory
An incredibly in-depth look at the Zelda chronology, outlines the various different incarnations of Link.
The Nintendo Dude "Making Sense of the Zelda Timeline"
The Nintendo Dude, aka Steve Bogda, had a good article on the series progression (if there is one). He actually brought up the fact that A Link to the Past is apparently a confirmed prequel to the original Legend of Zelda (I had previously heard this theorized but didn't know it was canonized continuity), which means that the A Link to the Past - Link's Awakening - Legend of Zelda - Zelda II progression is canon. That essentially makes a more concrete case of four-game sequelage than even the Ocarina of Time - Wind Waker - Phantom Hourglass - Spirit Tracks set makes, since the former is a case of direct sequelage.
Both of these theories utilize the idea of the "Split Timeline Theory," which arose when in an interview Zelda developer Eiji Aonuma stated that Ocarina of Time actually had a split ending that diverged the series timeline:
This led to the beginning of the idea that some games followed the timeline in which Link had returned to the past (leading to Majora's Mask) and another timeline which involved a future where Link no longer existed (leading to Wind Waker ~100 years later).
Zeldawiki also seems to state that a quote from Zelda creator Shigeru Miyamoto actually revealed that A Link to the Past was actually after LoZ/Zelda II, but that seems to be debatable.
Zeldawiki's own Split Timeline Disciplines page is also interesting to check out.
BS Zelda's Timeline theory
An incredibly in-depth look at the Zelda chronology, outlines the various different incarnations of Link.
The Nintendo Dude "Making Sense of the Zelda Timeline"
The Nintendo Dude, aka Steve Bogda, had a good article on the series progression (if there is one). He actually brought up the fact that A Link to the Past is apparently a confirmed prequel to the original Legend of Zelda (I had previously heard this theorized but didn't know it was canonized continuity), which means that the A Link to the Past - Link's Awakening - Legend of Zelda - Zelda II progression is canon. That essentially makes a more concrete case of four-game sequelage than even the Ocarina of Time - Wind Waker - Phantom Hourglass - Spirit Tracks set makes, since the former is a case of direct sequelage.
Both of these theories utilize the idea of the "Split Timeline Theory," which arose when in an interview Zelda developer Eiji Aonuma stated that Ocarina of Time actually had a split ending that diverged the series timeline:
Aonuma: Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years after the adult Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina. (from zeldawiki)
This led to the beginning of the idea that some games followed the timeline in which Link had returned to the past (leading to Majora's Mask) and another timeline which involved a future where Link no longer existed (leading to Wind Waker ~100 years later).
Zeldawiki also seems to state that a quote from Zelda creator Shigeru Miyamoto actually revealed that A Link to the Past was actually after LoZ/Zelda II, but that seems to be debatable.
Zeldawiki's own Split Timeline Disciplines page is also interesting to check out.
[LINK] Majora's Mask Theory - Fierce Deity as the Spirit of the Moon
Here's an article I found regarding another theory on Majora's Mask. An interesting read.
Fierce Deity: Spirit of the Moon
Props to poster Dathen Boccabella of Zelda Informer.
Fierce Deity: Spirit of the Moon
Props to poster Dathen Boccabella of Zelda Informer.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Random Thought - Spirit Tracks
I like to go on about how I didn't like Spirit Tracks all that much. I do this because I didn't see it as that new of an experience, and it followed directly after Phantom Hourglass, which I also wasn't overly impressed with. Well, it's not so much that I didn't like Spirit Tracks... it just seemed somewhat boring.
However, Spirit Tracks does something that I didn't think about until shortly ago - it presents a (spoilers, maybe?) newly established Hyrule, complete with large landmasses rather than the small and scattered islands of the Great Sea in Wind Waker.
The interesting thing about this is that it reaffirms the possibility of "normalized" Zelda continuity in the Wind Waker timeline (also [one of the] Ocarina of Time timelines, depending on your views of that whole conundrum).
By "normalized" I mean it reestablishes the Zelda continuity on a fixed landmass rather than having it moving between oceans, allowing the story to resume its general formula that it maintains through all its land-based games, even lending itself to the possibility of linking up with one of the other games (though I'm not sure which, I'd have look more closely at the overworld map), or perhaps a future title.
Of course, that means that the cycle of extension from the Ocarina timeline could end up being the most extensive confirmed temporal progression of all the Zelda games (heck, it's definitely four games already with Ocarina, Wind Waker, Phantom Hourlgass, and Spirit Tracks).
Then again, that means we'd be abandoning the possibility of revisiting the Great Sea and the drowned world of Old Hyrule from Wind Waker.
Just a thought.
However, Spirit Tracks does something that I didn't think about until shortly ago - it presents a (spoilers, maybe?) newly established Hyrule, complete with large landmasses rather than the small and scattered islands of the Great Sea in Wind Waker.
The interesting thing about this is that it reaffirms the possibility of "normalized" Zelda continuity in the Wind Waker timeline (also [one of the] Ocarina of Time timelines, depending on your views of that whole conundrum).
By "normalized" I mean it reestablishes the Zelda continuity on a fixed landmass rather than having it moving between oceans, allowing the story to resume its general formula that it maintains through all its land-based games, even lending itself to the possibility of linking up with one of the other games (though I'm not sure which, I'd have look more closely at the overworld map), or perhaps a future title.
Of course, that means that the cycle of extension from the Ocarina timeline could end up being the most extensive confirmed temporal progression of all the Zelda games (heck, it's definitely four games already with Ocarina, Wind Waker, Phantom Hourlgass, and Spirit Tracks).
Then again, that means we'd be abandoning the possibility of revisiting the Great Sea and the drowned world of Old Hyrule from Wind Waker.
Just a thought.
Link's Awakening Ethics
Whenever I find an article about theories on the world of The Legend of Zelda games, I'm always interested. This time I found (through a post on Reddit, thanks to user tomrhod) an series of forum posts on the ethical implications of the major plot point of Link's Awakening, one of my favorite games in the series.
Check it out! (WARNING SPOILERS) http://boards.ign.com/legend_of_zelda/b5188/169925536/p1/?11
Check it out! (WARNING SPOILERS) http://boards.ign.com/legend_of_zelda/b5188/169925536/p1/?11
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Why is it called "The Legend of Zelda," anyways?
I thought about this question a while back. Hey, it's what I do.
There are two reasons, from what I can tell, for the name of the series.
1.) The ACTUAL 'Legend of Zelda.'
The Legend of Zelda refers to an old story first told, if I remember correctly, in the instruction manual that came with Zelda II. The story told that long ago, the Hyrule was led by a king. This king had a son and a daughter. The king became ill, and on his deathbed he told his daughter, the Princess Zelda, the location of the hidden Triforce. He died, and the Princess became the only one who knew of its whereabouts. The Prince and the king's adviser both wished to know the location of the Triforce, but Zelda wanted it to remain a secret. In his anger the adviser, actually a powerful sorcerer, cast a spell on the Princess that would keep her in an indefinite sleep. In the process of this spell, the sorcerer died. The Prince was so upset about the fate of his sister that he declared that from that point on, all daughters in the Royal Family would have the name Zelda.
2.) A hero of many names
In each Zelda game, you can name the hero whatever you want (within the space limitations). This is the reason why the game isn't called "The Legend of Link," as it would actually be "The Legend of [whatever name you input]." Obviously Nintendo didn't like this idea, and seeing as the original game had only Zelda and Ganon as in-game, named characters, along with the fact that they likely didn't want to name the series after the antagonist, they went with "The Legend of Zelda."
Those are the reasons I've come up with. What do you think?
There are two reasons, from what I can tell, for the name of the series.
1.) The ACTUAL 'Legend of Zelda.'
The Legend of Zelda refers to an old story first told, if I remember correctly, in the instruction manual that came with Zelda II. The story told that long ago, the Hyrule was led by a king. This king had a son and a daughter. The king became ill, and on his deathbed he told his daughter, the Princess Zelda, the location of the hidden Triforce. He died, and the Princess became the only one who knew of its whereabouts. The Prince and the king's adviser both wished to know the location of the Triforce, but Zelda wanted it to remain a secret. In his anger the adviser, actually a powerful sorcerer, cast a spell on the Princess that would keep her in an indefinite sleep. In the process of this spell, the sorcerer died. The Prince was so upset about the fate of his sister that he declared that from that point on, all daughters in the Royal Family would have the name Zelda.
2.) A hero of many names
In each Zelda game, you can name the hero whatever you want (within the space limitations). This is the reason why the game isn't called "The Legend of Link," as it would actually be "The Legend of [whatever name you input]." Obviously Nintendo didn't like this idea, and seeing as the original game had only Zelda and Ganon as in-game, named characters, along with the fact that they likely didn't want to name the series after the antagonist, they went with "The Legend of Zelda."
Those are the reasons I've come up with. What do you think?
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Continuity in The Legend of Zelda (Part I - Replay Theory)
This will be the first part in a series of posts about how the different Zelda games relate to one another in their more obvious details, as well as their relationship on a broader, more all encompassing scale. I'm going to attempt to do one of these every Wednesday. So anyone who reads these, there will be more, so keep checking up!
To start, I'm going to relate the entirety of the canonical Zelda series, including 'The Legend of Zelda,' 'The Adventure of Link' (hereafter referred to as Zelda II), 'A Link to the Past,' Link's Awakening,' 'The Ocarina of Time,' 'Oracle of Seasons' and 'Oracle of Ages,' 'Four Swords' and 'Four Swords Adventures,' 'The Minish Cap,' 'Twilight Princess,' and 'Phantom Hourglass.' The 'Zelda' CD-I games will not be included, as they are considered by many to be non-canon because of their complete lack of respect for the 'Zelda' characters and the fact that they are overall some of the worst games ever created. Seriously. They're a complete waste of anyone's time. But let's not go into that right now.
My original theory about how the majority of the Zelda games worked together was what I like to call the 'Replay Theory'. Think of the first Zelda game. You have the basic story elements: The Hero (Link), a magic sword (The Magic Sword), an evil being bent on ruling everything (Ganon), a 'damsel in distress' (Zelda), and a magical artifact integral to the story (Triforce pieces). All of these elements are present in each Zelda game, with few exceptions. All of these elements combine to make The Legend of Zelda story. The idea behind this theory is basically that each Zelda game is a retelling of the same basic story. Sometimes the story is only somewhat different, sometimes it's more detailed, sometimes it might even be heavily altered. Of course this doesn't apply to all of the games, such as sequels (Majora's Mask, Phantom Hourglass) , but it can apply to most of the games.
Every game has the hero, Link. This, besides the title itself, is the most noticeable repeated aspect of each game. Link (though of course you can name him differently) is always the hero that you play as, whether you are saving Hyrule, or foreign lands such as Termina (Majora's Mask), Labrynna (Oracle of Ages), Holodrum (Oracle of Seasons), etc.
Every game has some sort of evil being that you must go up against. If you've played a Zelda game, chances are good that you know who Ganon is. Ganon, fully named Ganondorf Dragmire, is the most common major antagonist of the Zelda universe. The only games in which he does not appear are The Minish Cap, Zelda II, Four Swords, Link's Awakening, and Majora's Mask. He does make an appearance in Zelda II, and is symbolically referenced in Link's Awakening, but does not actually retain his usual role. Because the two Oracle games together bring about an ultimate confrontation with Ganon, I still count them as including Ganon as the final boss.
Every game has some sort of magical sword. Usually this blade is the Master Sword or to a lesser extent the Four Sword. In Zelda I and Zelda II this sword is simply known as the Magical Sword. The only real exceptions here are Link's Awakening and the two 'Oracle' games. While each of these does have an advanced sword, they are not necessary for normal game play.
Zelda, though included in the title, is not in every game in person, but is mentioned at least once in each game. Most notably, she does not appear anywhere in Link's Awakening; she only is referred to in the very beginning. She is not directly in either 'Oracle' game, but when playing both together she makes an entrance into the story. Also, she is not technically in Majora's Mask, however she does make an appearance in a flashback sequence where she teaches Link the Song of Time.
All of these similarities form a loose correlation between these games. The repeatability of each of these elements makes them easily interchangeable with their alternate version counterparts. You could call the Master Sword the Magical Sword, or vice versa, for example. Link's personality and purpose, as well as Zelda's and Ganon's, are somewhat similar for each game, despite their differing appearances.
This theory, like any theory, has holes. I went with it for some time, and I still believe it has some merit. However, I believe, at least on some scale, the games lend themselves to a chronological relationship. I'll go into time lines beginning with my next post.
To start, I'm going to relate the entirety of the canonical Zelda series, including 'The Legend of Zelda,' 'The Adventure of Link' (hereafter referred to as Zelda II), 'A Link to the Past,' Link's Awakening,' 'The Ocarina of Time,' 'Oracle of Seasons' and 'Oracle of Ages,' 'Four Swords' and 'Four Swords Adventures,' 'The Minish Cap,' 'Twilight Princess,' and 'Phantom Hourglass.' The 'Zelda' CD-I games will not be included, as they are considered by many to be non-canon because of their complete lack of respect for the 'Zelda' characters and the fact that they are overall some of the worst games ever created. Seriously. They're a complete waste of anyone's time. But let's not go into that right now.
My original theory about how the majority of the Zelda games worked together was what I like to call the 'Replay Theory'. Think of the first Zelda game. You have the basic story elements: The Hero (Link), a magic sword (The Magic Sword), an evil being bent on ruling everything (Ganon), a 'damsel in distress' (Zelda), and a magical artifact integral to the story (Triforce pieces). All of these elements are present in each Zelda game, with few exceptions. All of these elements combine to make The Legend of Zelda story. The idea behind this theory is basically that each Zelda game is a retelling of the same basic story. Sometimes the story is only somewhat different, sometimes it's more detailed, sometimes it might even be heavily altered. Of course this doesn't apply to all of the games, such as sequels (Majora's Mask, Phantom Hourglass) , but it can apply to most of the games.
Every game has the hero, Link. This, besides the title itself, is the most noticeable repeated aspect of each game. Link (though of course you can name him differently) is always the hero that you play as, whether you are saving Hyrule, or foreign lands such as Termina (Majora's Mask), Labrynna (Oracle of Ages), Holodrum (Oracle of Seasons), etc.
Every game has some sort of evil being that you must go up against. If you've played a Zelda game, chances are good that you know who Ganon is. Ganon, fully named Ganondorf Dragmire, is the most common major antagonist of the Zelda universe. The only games in which he does not appear are The Minish Cap, Zelda II, Four Swords, Link's Awakening, and Majora's Mask. He does make an appearance in Zelda II, and is symbolically referenced in Link's Awakening, but does not actually retain his usual role. Because the two Oracle games together bring about an ultimate confrontation with Ganon, I still count them as including Ganon as the final boss.
Every game has some sort of magical sword. Usually this blade is the Master Sword or to a lesser extent the Four Sword. In Zelda I and Zelda II this sword is simply known as the Magical Sword. The only real exceptions here are Link's Awakening and the two 'Oracle' games. While each of these does have an advanced sword, they are not necessary for normal game play.
Zelda, though included in the title, is not in every game in person, but is mentioned at least once in each game. Most notably, she does not appear anywhere in Link's Awakening; she only is referred to in the very beginning. She is not directly in either 'Oracle' game, but when playing both together she makes an entrance into the story. Also, she is not technically in Majora's Mask, however she does make an appearance in a flashback sequence where she teaches Link the Song of Time.
All of these similarities form a loose correlation between these games. The repeatability of each of these elements makes them easily interchangeable with their alternate version counterparts. You could call the Master Sword the Magical Sword, or vice versa, for example. Link's personality and purpose, as well as Zelda's and Ganon's, are somewhat similar for each game, despite their differing appearances.
This theory, like any theory, has holes. I went with it for some time, and I still believe it has some merit. However, I believe, at least on some scale, the games lend themselves to a chronological relationship. I'll go into time lines beginning with my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
