Talk:The Legend of Zelda (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Famicom Cartridge Re-Release

In addition to being released as a Disk on the Famicom Disk System this game was also re-released as a standard Famicom cartridge in 1994. Shouldn't it be mentioned, possibly in the re-release section along with the Wii's Virtual Console, GBA's NES Classic Series, etc.?172.164.175.175 06:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

http://nindb.classicgaming.gamespy.com/nes/zl.shtml

Yes, it should, absolutely. -Zixor 11:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Controversy That Isn't

The controversy section should be removed. The manji shaped dungeon was never a cause of any sort of public controversy in mainstream OR gaming circles, and the editor who wrote the section even conceeded that there were few (if any) complaints about the symbol's usage. It strikes me as editorialization, and needlessly creating controversy where there is none. No reason for it.

I agree. The section itself even says there were surprisingly few complaints about it. I've blanked that editorialisation.

--Flakeloaf 10:18:48, 25 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Where should the Second Quest go?

Where is the best place to mention the "second quest?" I think it's pretty important. --Feitclub 03:38, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create a new paragraph explaining the sequence of levels in both quests? --Locarno 14:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

EDIT: I've now moved it into its own section after the controversy section, as the pseudo-swastika was only featured in the First Quest. That is clearly where the First Quest info ends, and then the Second Quest can begin. Whereas if you put it anywhere before the controversy section people could misinterpret that shape as appearing in both Quests, which it does not. --Garrett 03:48, 12 Apr 2005 (GMT)

Um.. somebody removed the 2nd quest section? While I might agree that it could use some paring down, I wouldn't remove it entirely... ----Steve 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Zelda not an RPG?

I think the authors view on why Zelda is Not a role playing game is a little biased, fact is it's an ongoing debate among gamers and an encyclapedia article should reflect both viewpoints, not just state the authors views on the issue. (anonymous IP)

I agree on this. I mellowed the viewpoint somewhat, and included the Secret of Mana example. I invite you to modify it further in any way you see fit — you won't hurt anything or upset anyone, I promise. Deco 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oi... Secret of Mana and The Legend of Zelda are very different. You can equip a variety of weapons, and with Zelda... Legend of Zelda - Three different swords, Zelda II - One sword, LttP - Four swords, LA - Two, OoT - Four (One of them being the worthless sword), MM - Four (One of them being the unupgraded second level sword), OoS - Four, OoA - Four, TWW - Two. With Secret of Mana, you could equip Swords, Axes, etc. With Zelda, the closest thing to leveling is increasing your health and your Mana bar. The main point in Zelda is not to raise your stats, it's to explore and get through the game. I've seen people beat Zelda with only three hearts. Good luck trying to beat FFVI with all level ones. - A Link to the Past

You can't say that there isn't additional equipment. For one thing, you have an entire inventory of additional items for your playing pleasure, half of which are neccessary to complete the game. Another point, the extra swords are not always required to win in Zelda. Vizierde 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I love this argument. At most levels I think people would concede the game is an Action RPG. What I love to ask people is this: "Do you think Fable is an RPG?" If you answered 'yes' to that, then the Zelda series is an RPG as well. TotalTommyTerror 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Please remember the difference between topic discussion and your own opinions! You are venturing into turning this into a forum topic, which it is not intended to be.

Most people hold the view that an RPG/CRPG must have levelling up, not through item acquisition (as in the Zeldas) but through experience-point gain and character levelling. Therefore by that description only Zelda II is truly

But since the vast majority of well-known categorical and review sites (GameFAQs, Gamespot, etc.) refer to Zelda as an RPG, this is NOW THE CORRECT VIEW. By widespread use in this new context, the term "RPG" has now mutated to include a variety of things that previously would have been dismissed as being merely an action-adventure.

So, please, try to keep your own opinions to a minimum and do your best act as dull and unopinionated as the Discussion concept expects you to be!

We all have opinions, but in this case it's in danger of getting in the way of facts. I have not removed your statement, as it's not my place to censor your opninon, but do try to keep opinion to a minimum and act as much like an "answer drone" as possible. (Garrett)

I strongly disagree with you in this case, Garrett. Even though many reputable sources label it an RPG, without attaching much meaning to this label, this is a definitional issue that will depend on the particular interpretation of "RPG" used. Zelda is an RPG in the sense that an ostrich is a bird - it has some of the same things in common, enough that many people label it as such, but it's anything but your prototypical subject, so classification debates are inevitable. Why simply state a controversial fact when we can give the reader more insight by summarizing, comparing, and contrasting the diverse range of opinions on the matter?

More than that though, I really don't appreciate your tone; "try to keep your own opinions to a minimum" is the most Orwellian thing I've heard in a while. Although I think a flamewar over what genre it belongs to is pointless, the discussion is centered around what should be placed in the article, and that's what the talk page is for. I think an effective compromise such as that suggested on Talk:Legend of Zelda series#Zelda_.3D_RPG.3F would benefit editors and readers alike. Deco 03:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh dea... um... yeah... um... hhhm. Well, that was one of my first comments. I've gotten more used to the way things work here since writing that. And now I reread it, it doesn't sound at all like I intended. Much too strong. I guess Orwell would have been proud! :(

Anyway, it's basically "misuse" that has led to the new use. People described many early action-adventures as "role-playing games" because you were basically a valiant hero in a fantasy-esque setting and could upgrade some items. They were nothing at all like the depth and complexity of a pen-and-paper RPG from the same time of course, but that was pretty much the best you could expect from a videogame. And so that association stuck I guess.

However there's no definite answer, and indeed when adding a missing Zelda game to GameFAQs (Kodai no Sekiban) there were about three separate and conflicting ways in which the other entries in the series had been labelled, so in the end I labelled it the same as ALttP. Master Thief Garrett 04:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Really, what IS an RPG these days? Nowadays, every license is moving more and more towards RPG-ish elements (even GTA!)... but I wonder if "action-adventure" would now make people nowadays think of Prince of Persia (the 3D ones) or Crash Bandicoot, as opposed to what it used to mean?

Myself, I don't care what it's labelled as. Even if it's labelled "wrong" in my eyes I'm not going to care... BUT the problem is how to convey the most logical answer to the non-fan reader?

Perhaps it would be better to just call it an "action-adventure with some RPG elements" or something vague and catch-all-ish like that, and leave it up to the RPG and Action-Adventure pages themselves to clear this whole mess up... something like that... :) Master Thief Garrett 04:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've done an edit on this, based partly on User:Poiuyt Man's suggestions from the link I supplied above. What do you think? Deco 04:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine! Maybe still not quite clear enough, but a click-thru to CRPG will provide some answers... and create some new questions too... but that's not OUR problem! Master Thief Garrett 08:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

We should define the game based on what an RPG is, not the word of IGN. It doesn't matter that GTA may be steering towards the RPG genre, Zelda has always been true to the Adventure genre (outside of Zelda II). -- A Link to the Past 22:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Nintendo's site lists all of them as just "Adventure" when I did a search for 'Zelda', and that taking a quick look at IGN/Gamespot, pretty much all the entries in the series but one or two odd examples are listed as Action Adventure. By the way, I'm curious as to why 'shonen' is listed in the genre. Eusis 00:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, i'd hate to add more contreversy, but I always thought of Zelda as an Action-RPG type of game. I like the definition all game guide gives for the Zelda games. as a "Third-Person Action-RPG". [1]. It makes more sense then claiming it to be a "Shonin" which is rather unfair and more of an anime series category. Andrzejbanas 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Zelda is unquestionably an Action-RPG. Please do not re-catagorize it. Grendel 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

is the sequels section necessary?

Well, is it? I mean we've got the navigation box at the bottom and the series link disambig at the top, and it's listing each and every game, basically a duplication of the list on the series page. Can't it be cut to save room? I mean "room" in the sense of a concise, useful page of course.

--on second thoughts, I'm going to be bold and remove it anyway... if anyone protests you can give reasons of course. Master Thief Garrett 09:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed information

I've noticed a lot of information was removed from this article in the past. I am curious if any of those sections should be returned. Also, what kind of sections should we add/or what should we improve in this article. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Go indepth into the game without going indepth on small details like enemy lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Animal Crossing (2001)

The Legend of Zelda was included in Animal Crossing (2001-2002) for Nintendo GameCube as a secret unlockable. This information should be placed on this page in some context.

-It's in the intro right now, and will be moved to the "versions" section whenever it's created. Zixor 00:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

u can only git it buy chetin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.85.20 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Here are some suggestions, as this article is up for peer review.

"who must rescue Princess Zelda from the clasps of the villain Ganon." "Clasps" is a bit clunky, perhaps "grasp" is a better word.

If you're going to include the release date of the Classic NES GBA game, the release date of the Collector's Edition should probably be included as well for consistency. As mentioned earlier, it was also in Animal Crossing.

The Game Overview is a bit wordy, with a lot of very specific examples for an overview. It seems to miss the point of an "overview"; there's no mention that the game is played from a top-down perspective, for example. As an overview, this should probably explain simply how the game is played, what the general objectives are, how they are accomplished, and so on. The part about nonlinearity is excellent, however, and it should perhaps be made more clear that most games at the time were designed so that objectives and tasks were to be completed in a specific sequence.

The beginning of the Innovations section sould probably start with the proper noun, not a pronoun. When people see a figure like "selling 6.5 million copies", they'll probably want to see a source; there are no sources whatsoever for anything in this article. While I accept that the author(s) may have firsthand experience of the game itself, there are certainly some things that could use sources, like the mention at the beginning that "The game was inspired by Miyamoto's imaginary adventures in the hills of Kyoto as a young child."

"...making it seem special from the very beginning." seems a bit editorial, I'd suggest removing that. The reader can guess how special this is if all other games were grey. "The First Zelda," unnecessary to say "the first", reader already knows it's the first unless you've suddenly changed the topic. "wildly popular," feels like editorializing as well, perhas just popular.

I'm not going to touch the issue of Zelda and RPG's. Just note that Zelda is barely mentioned in the page that this links to, and there it's called a self-declared RPG. If some people consider this a precessor to more traditional RPG's, you might want to provide a source or two which actually claims that.

The Second Quest. One of the reasons this quest was so difficult is because there was little to no guidance for the player. The game came with a paper map that showed many of the important places. This map was largely only valid for the first quest, leaving the player in the dark for the second quest. This may be a detail you'd want to incorporate to avoid confusion.

The article itself is fairly well written and well organized. It could easily be expanded with things like lists of the monsters/enemies, lists of items, secrets, and things like that, but I don't think those are necessary. If anything, some information about the basic gameplay should probably be added, and certainly some sources for some of the more specific details.

I would add some information to this on my own, but the writer(s) seem to already have a good grasp on things so I figured it would be best to leave it to them. Good luck with this. BCampbell 19:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Length To Complete

I think it would be important to add the length of time it took to complete the game. That's a ussual statistic for an RPG game...for example, Final Fantasy VI takes on average 40 hours to complete. I heard that the original Legend of Zelda was supposed to take an enourmously long period of time by the standards of gaming at the time: that is, when you include the second quest and so on.

DOES ANYBODY KNOW THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME IT TOOK TO COMPLETE THIS GAME?

It would be a valuable fact, that is really just missing.

Yes I think that would be a good feature to have. However only timed plays I know of are speed runs (I think TSA holds the record) and those aren't anywhere near the length of time even a seasoned Zelda player would take on their very first time through. I seem to recall some Zelda sites having an "total playing time" estimate of some sort, I'll have a look around if I remember to. Garrett^Talk 11:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

That figure is not necessarily accurate. Nogo. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

-Yes, I think that might be a helpful statistic to have. I'll have to do some high and low end estimates. Zixor 00:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC). -Actually, if someone wants to put in in, I'd be fine with it, but I'm not going to bother. Zixor 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes

"Princess Zelda from the clasps of the villain Ganon by collecting eight pieces of an item known as the Triforce." The clasps part could use some changes, someone suggest an alternative way to say that line ? angelo88@gmail.com

I would say 'grasp' Speaking of semantics, I'm pretty sure the entire title isn't up there in japanese.. only 'hyrule no fantasy'. if it said 'hyrule no fantasy, zelda no densetsu' we'd see at least two 'no' kanji. someone neglected to type it all out I think.

-It should be fine now. Zixor 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda Novel Spinoffs?

What do people think about Nintendo possibly spinning off the Realms of The Legend of Zelda into it's own Novel franchise? A franchise such as the Forgotten Realms franchise based of Dungeons and Dragons? There are at least seven different lands with over 10 different species. How many different story possiblities are there? Litteraly hundreds. It doesn't have to be based off the main characters of the Zelda franchise but be based on the realms and peoples. What do you think? [anon]

I don't know. Generally novels rely heavily on interactions between characters and Link just doesn't do very much of that. Plus I'm a bit nervous after how much the cartoon series screwed up Link. Also, except perhaps for Link's Awakening and Wind Waker, the plot has never been Zelda's strong point — they'd have to take some license to build something with depth on top of what the games supply. Deco 00:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The characters from the game franchise should not be part of the novels. Only the realms, races and mythologies.

-This isn't the place to discuss it. Zixor 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelda 8-bit Series

This is the first Zelda game in the Zelda 8-bit series, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachkudrna18@yahoo.com (talk • contribs)

-Hah, I don't think anyone's deabating this. Zixor 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Gold cartridge

Wasn't this game the first to use a non-standard-gray cartridge? Cburnett 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and besides Adventure of Link I believe it was the only one. Deco 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not the only one. Bible Adventures used a light blue cartidge, I hink there are a few more. 216.205.211.118 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bible Adventures was an unlicensed game. It was a different color because it was unauthorized by Nintendo. There might be other colored cartridges that were licensed, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. CPitt76 20:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There's 26 of the Nintendo World Championship carts that were gold too. 1up had a feature awhile back that showed off very rare games, and the Wikipedia entry makes note of this as well. I myself can't think of any other licensed games that were in non-standard colors, though as far as unlicensed ones are concerned, the Tengen games were also an alternate color (black). Eusis 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few unlicensed games which use varient colors in their cartridges, and / or non-standard cartridge designs. Zelda, (and Zelda II) I think, is the only liscensed game to do this. Grendel 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we have an image of the famous gold cartridge? Burns32958 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I added an image I created of the cartridge. If anyone feels like moving it / cleaning up the image, please do so. I'm not real sure of the best place on the page to put it. 'Shoe' McCartt 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look that gold. The lighting must be bad.

I'm sure somebody has a gold Zelda cart somewhere, maybe they could take a better picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.234.166 (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Gold color varies with lighting and viewing angle. Zixor 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Quest reference

I removed the following from the part about innovations:

(In Japan, the built-in save feature was actually introduced by Dragon Quest, which was released approximately two months before Zelda. However, Zelda's North American release predated that of Dragon Warrior, the English version of Dragon Quest, by two years.)

The Dragon Quest article states that the Japanese version didn't use a battery but a password. 128.230.13.89 02:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Katakana

I was looking at some japanese screenshots of the game and i have a question: Why is the game have only katakana??—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.34.177 (talk • contribs) 11:02, May 9 2006

To save space, probably. It was extremely limited on early Famicarts and FDS disks. Also BE SURE TO SIGN YOU COMMENTS ON TALK PAGES BY TYPING four tildes( ~~~~). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this item in the article marked "citation needed"? It's easy enough to verify the game uses only katakana, and the reason why would be pretty obvious. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know why some of the Game Boy Games have limited or no Kanji (ex: the Pocket Monster series??) (207.200.34.177)

Response Kanji isn't typically used very much in games aimed at younger (or very broad) audiences. I don't know how this question is related to Zelda, though. Grendel 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs some fixing

This article shows many words in past tense, as if the game doesn't exist any longer. It does, it's actually quite easy to find, even if it is old. It's like saying "Joe was nice" even if "Joe's" still alive. RidE the Lightning! 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia & Third Quest

The second Trivia bit seems confusing to me. I had no clue that the NES had a mike. Plus, how did you beat the boss, if the mike wasn't included? Also, the Third Quest thing is a little out of synch with the actual page about it, and I think it comes off as confusing. If anyone disagrees with me, that's fine, but I just thought I'd try and help a little. 64.111.128.11 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It actually already says so in the article, but the microphone was only included in the Famicom's controller, and not in the NES. This particular enemy is not a boss, and can easily be defeated with a single arrow, as well as with the sword. The enemy is called "Pols Voice' and this is because the Famicom controller polls voice from the microphone. Lysia 02:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This piece of trivia is intriguing to me. I never understood what that "hates noise" thing was about, and never imagined a system as early as the Famicom would include a mic. Deco 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we need to make some changes...

I recently had the clean up the Zelda II article because it had too much content and read like a strategy guide for aquiring each item, defeating each boss and so forth. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia, so we need to truncet some of this content down so the article reads like an actual encyclopedia article. Secondly, the box art quality is rather bad. I'll look into finding a higher quality image in the meantime. Does anyone have any problems with this? Grendel 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of the bosses section, which is much too detailed, I think this article has largely avoided the fate of Zelda II. Most of the sections deal with out-of-universe, not in-universe, discussion (reference Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). Deco 16:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the boss section entirely, and uploaded a much higher quality box scan. I think the only thing lacking in the article now is the plot. Grendel 15:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Boxart Reversions

A couple of editors keep reverting back to the old, lossy boxart image. I uploaded the new one for a reason -- it's higher quality, and therefore more desirable to present the article. Please do not revert it without first discussing the matter on this talk page. Grendel 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A counterpoint:

• To start, the "Classic Series" box art was not the original packaging for the game. It was the box which the game released in when it was reissued in a standard gray NES cartridge several years later. I agree that there should be a nicer, higher quality scan of the original box art, but even the lower quality image is more historically accurate to be placed with the release statistics than the rather garish Classic box.
• The original box art is more in line with the the "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link" article [[2]], which shows "Adventure of Link"'s original box art.
• I uploaded the original image on the 6th of September, two days ago, so I'm not sure where "keep reverting" and "old" come from (unless someone else also uploaded original art earlier than that).
• The Classic image is of the same quality as the original, even if it's larger, so I don't know why it is prefered over the other. If we have no other image to use, then yes, use the Classic image. But if we have a choice, I'd rather see the actual box art which the game was originally released in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.14 (talk • contribs)

Response I have no problem with the original release box, but it's difficult to find one of decent quality. (the two used in the article so far really are terrible) I'm only trying to improve the quality of the overall article. If we continue to use the low-quality box image, then it's going to present the article quite poorly. And, really, how does using the classic re-release box hurt? I say it's the best option we have so far, at least until we find a higher quality original. Grendel 00:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As a life long fan of the series, its the original that i'd prefer to see on the article. Agreed that the quality is crappy for it, but its the original. having the whole classic thing on the box doesn't do it for me. maybe we can have a gallary or something of boxart for the game to include both? just random suggestions --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

- I have uploaded a much larger, and sharper version of the original box. You can find it here [[3]]. If everyone likes it, I can replace the classic version with this one.Mintchocolatebear 04:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That looks fantastic. I say we should use it. Grendel 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Great quality.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)