The end of timeline speculation?, *SPOILERS!*

Except that this sounds contradictory to what I've been described as the events happening in the game. [spoiler]If Link wanted to get rid of all the villains, why would there even any lackeys to extend the endgame?[/spoiler] Perhaps I'm missing some details here.

Anyhow, jeez, if plot logic jumps like this can make you hate a Zelda game, how could you even stand the Retro gaming era? Can't people enjoy a Zelda game for actual gameplay anymore...?

This post has been edited by Duke Serkol on Dec 30 2011, 12:55 AM

[spoiler]Link only wished for the Demon King to die, not all his underlings. So yeah, more stupid wishing at work.[/spoiler]

I have no idea what you're talking about concerning the retro gaming era. All I know is, games like ALttP and OoT made me love them through a perfect blend of gameplay and story.
Even freaking Mario 3 had a decent amount of story. Today Miyamoto seems to have developed an allergy to that.

Okay, I just finished the game...

[spoiler]and no, it doesn't make any more sense. Less in fact. Remember that I mentioned how there already was a Zelda in the past? Well the game forgot because now there sure as heck isn't!
Then Link places the Master Sword into a pedestal in the past and naturally it's there in the future... and THEN the game officially confirms that it was Impa all along that was in the temple from the start of the game. Except she disappears. So maybe she was a ghost? Is that meant to explain it? What then of Zelda... ah screw it.[/spoiler]

If you guys know of any threads on any message board were they've tried to make sense of the ending, please point me in their general direction.

There has been discussion on it, but I don't know if anyone has made sense of it yet lol


Here is one of ZU. But there aren't many replies. I saw others earlier, but avoided them for fear of spoilers and would have to look for them again...

Yeah, I dropped there just now, expecting to find a massive topic analyzing the heck out of it, but I only found this one and a few others that were somewhat unsatisfying.
Thanks though.

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm not.

Princess Peach is not kidnapped for the largest part of Super Mario bros 3 and the Mushroom Kingdom is safe.
Instead, Bowser sends his just now introduced Kooplaing to conquer the various kingdoms in the Mushroom World.
This is called development.

It is only at the end of world 7 that Peach is kidnapped again and then, for the first time, Mario goes into the Koopa Kingdom.

All of the above was new at the time. Compare this with the "New" Super Mario Bros games.


...and by the way, that line at the end with the Princess making fun of you? Made up by the assholes at Nintendo America.

... This is a joke, right?

Please tell me you're joking.

I'm afraid he's not.

Duke, your entire argument is based on the fact that SMB3 has a back story and a plot twist, not to mention a very predictable one even back in the day. On top of that, the existence of that plot twist doesn't change how the rest of the game would have played out in any way. In the end, it's just an excuse to not receive a free power-up between World 7 and 8 and to have a saving princess scene at the end.

Honestly, SMB has just as much back story as SMB3, and the "princess is in another castle" line is a better plot twist in my opinion since it does extend the game to further worlds (although clearly that line is abused).

In the end, while I would call it a story, I would definitely not call it a "decent amount" and neither "new at the time", and it's certaintly not part of the reason why the game is still fondly remembered today.

I've only seen Skyward Sword up to the point where you actually get the Skyward Sword, but already I can say that it has a much better and fuller story. I'm not saying that the story is good or complete (in fact I suspect a disappointing story full of plot holes), but stuff actually happen and have an important impact on the gameplay.

P.S.: I completely agree with you about NSMB having almost nothing new about it. Gotta love marketing.

P.P.S: Oh and yeah I knew that the ending speech was changed by NOA, but hey they put it in the game and they kept it even up to this day, so I still include it.

This post has been edited by SmashManiac on Dec 30 2011, 11:27 AM

I thought the SMB3 'the princess is in another castle' line was funny

You know what? Screw this, I'm outta here.

Putting SMB3 aside (you know what, I had actually completely forgotten that Princess Peach/Toadstool hadn't been kidnapped at the start of the game until you guys mentioned it)...

I think this quote from SmashManiac might help put some things in perspective:

Of course, your milieage may vary, but it seems like the Zelda series has had a lot of dissapointing stories full of plot holes lately. And sometimes this isn't even offset by the gameplay being any good - look at TWW, which was pretty much hobbled on all levels.

So the fans are allowed to talk smack about WW again?

When people were whining about Twilight Princess, that game was put on a pedestal for whatever reason. These kind of "X ZELDA IS BETAR TEH NEW ONE SUX CAUSE OF CANON" blabbers are why I don't usually show my face in other Zelda communities.

Anyway, my own point basically boils down to "Don't literally let your gameplay experience be ruined because you didn't enjoy the plot. This is not a Visual Novel; the plot is meant to compliment the gameplay, not the other way around. And don' try to justify your position by attempting to glorify SMB3 out of some perception of it having a plotline that isn't just an excuse for the gameplay."

As for "bad writing" in the Zelda games, you folks seem to forget that LttP introduced the concept of the Triforce being complete together without explaining how it'd have split apart between it's timeframe and Zelda 1. To this date, that has never been explained and it's likely gonna be an abandoned plot arc.
It also killed off Ganon, even though previously he is established to die in Zelda 1. The idea of Ganon being explicitly able to rise from the dead isn't introduced until BS Zelda no Densetsu: Inishie no Sekiban (and in the case of America, the Oracles games), and even then, no one ever explains why Ganon is alive again in Zelda 1.
It also a fat fairy basically hidden -directly under- the location of the final battle who gives you your final sword upgrade and Silver Arrows, and to access her you need to drop everything you're doing to go and buy an oversized, cartoony bomb from a shop and have it somehow walk behind you until it reaches the place it is meant to explode at.
And as for fourth-wall-breaking? "M.C. Hammer". Original Japanese item name.

OoT was originally said to take place in the Imprisoning War. Now it's not, because it played out very differently and the continuity of WW onward depends on how OoT itself played out.
It also rewrote how Zoras behaved and introduced a ton of other species that are unmentioned in the previous games, yet reused a lot in the latter games. Even taking the 3-way-split timeline into account, it's tough to explain why Gorons are only in Oracles and Zora seem to randomly mood-swing between normal, evil, and corporate businessmen.
It also has a Ganon form that doesn't really resemble the classic Ganon form.
And we already covered the time travel plotholes.

Majora's Mask made the unfortunate mistake of permitting Tingle to exist. Actually, that being said, there's no real explanation for why Tingle exists outside of Termina in any future Zelda game. Eee!
It also took "Time travel plotholes" and ran away with the concept of them, setting the plot up so that it only specifically makes sense in the meta-"videogame" sense: "Plot coherency? What's that?"
Why does warping back into the first day not ever undo you getting your Ocarina to begin with? Because then you wouldn't be able to manipulate time, silly!

Now, in spite of all this, do I look at these games, nitpick these elements and go "RUINED FOREVER?"

No, I don't. It's LttP's gameplay that makes it fondly remembered, not it's plot. The few folks I talk to about Zelda games in terms of plot nowadays don't even remember that "The Imprisoning War" was background story for the game, or that it was designed as a prequel to the NES games in spite of failing to explain some key plot points to set them up.
They just remember whacking cuccos until they fought back, getting turned into a rabbit, and being stuck in the ice dungeon for hours.
Likewise for OoT, although unfortunately that appears to be the game that sparked all the "Timeline" and "canon" wars in the first place. Yet now, when I tell them the game was originally marketed as being about the Imprisoning War, I'm actually expected to show citations and sources.

With all this in mind, it's easy to see why Shiggy wanted to take the "It's all just the same story told a bit differently" approach to every Zelda. While I consider the attempts to make a coherent timeline interesting, to me complete plot coherency doesn't matter nearly as much as, you know, actually having a game that's fun. And you guys remember what Zelda game was fun? Zelda 1. And how much plot did that have? Barely any.

EDIT: Whoops, originally thought you said people were putting Twilight Princess up on a pedestal... but TWW? When were people ever putting it up on a pedestal?

Seriously though, it has its fans (I'm actually one of them - I really do like the game and have defended aspects of it before, but it does have story and gameplay flaws that are pretty big and certainly not because of issues with 'canon').

I don't want to get drawn into the debate on details, but the back of the box ALttP was said to be before LoZ/AoL, featuring the LoZ/AoL Link and Zelda's ancestors. And the idea that Ganon could be raised from the dead was a big part of AoL, the second game in the series (all those damn game over screened burned that into my brain as a kid ) But you already knew that, since you mention no one remembering aLttP as being before LoZ.

Beyond that, I don't think Duke was complaining about the cute/quirky/weird aspects of the games like you listed. They are a big part of the Zelda series make up. It has a sense of humour. I don't think Duke said anything about that sort of stuff? Maybe he did and I wasn't paying attention

I would add to that that ALttP is absolutely dripping with atmosphere, especially when it was first released - the graphics are wonderfully done and full of nice little touches that help sell the whole experience. Even the manual book of ALttP was wonderfully done and helped contribute to the overal experience of the game. These things help make the game what it was as well - video games certainly aren't 'visual novels' because they have there own, unique ways of being interacted with, which are changing all the time as technology and techniques develop. I know Duke has possibly 'come on a bit strong' but his reasons for feeling that his SS experience have been ruined because of what he considered a bad ending are his own, and part of his own interactions with the game.

This post has been edited by coinilius on Dec 31 2011, 01:56 AM

I agree. And that's exactly why I've always hated Wind Waker: the story is actually pretty good, but the execution is awful.