Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages

older entries

I noticed that the world in Seasons was called Labrynna here. That's actually the name for the world in Ages, I changed the names accordingly. I also renamed the picture from Labrynna to Holodrum. Zig 19:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

is that boss reference (Fryopar) really necessary? I'm tempted to remove it, but I'd like some feeback on it before I do so. Master Thief Garrett 02:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge

There has been a merge tag on Rod_of_Seasons for a long time proposing a merge to this page - could someone who knows the subject comment on, or even better do, the proposal. Kcordina

GA Promotion

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Looks good! -- Underneath-it-All 18:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ǣ

Merge with Oracle of Ages?

Both articles on both games are basically the same. I suggest a merge of the two articles. I also added spoiler warnings for both articles to assist in earning featured status. Legedevin 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Merged. Pagrashtak 06:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Legedevin 10:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags

I added the spoiler tags again to the plot section. If you think it's unnecessary, then feel free to remove it. But I don't think most players expect that Twinrova's involved in whatever's happening, including lighting the flames. There's also an ending section, which should definitely have spoiler warnings in any case. Legedevin 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Do you think the Plot section looks better before or after the Gameplay section? Legedevin 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it flows better with the Plot section first. Pagrashtak 00:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always been a proponent of plot, then gameplay. I feel that gameplay sections are difficult to understand if you don't know what the character is supposed to be doing. I have heard it argued, though, that gameplay is the most important thing that the casual reader wants to know, so it should be first, but I don't agree. I think the casual reader most wants to know what the game is about. Maybe the best solution would be have a short plot intro sentence or two in the introductory paragraph, then progress into the gameplay and then the full plot disclosure. Any thoughts? This should really be brought up in the videogames WikiProject. Sraan 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not feasible to split to plot into two separate sections. As far as the ordering of the plot and gameplay sections, it depends on the article. The order that flows best should be selected. Pagrashtak 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh.

Oracle of Ages is completely gone from Wikipedia now that someone unmerged them. We need to revert.

By the way, for the merged article, I suggest you should split the Gameplay section it into "General" (introductory paragraph), Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages, then Interaction. I think it flows better that way. Legedevin 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

When you explain why Ages and Seasons are not complete games, you can revert.

If you do show that, feel free to merge Link's Awakening - the gameplay section is likely to be redundant to OoS/A's, and any differences in dungeons, overworld, items, etc. is trivial information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Discussion about whether the Zelda Oracle articles should be merged is taking place at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. Pagrashtak 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

FA

Anyone else feel the need to start the nomination over again? The Placebo Effect 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's hold off for a little bit—does anyone want to discuss the merge? I'm not sure where we are on this. I'd like to be the one to nominate, if you don't mind, since I've been putting so much into this. Pagrashtak 04:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss, please do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Zelda Oracle merge discussion. Pagrashtak 04:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another stupid suggestion.

The sentence "Oracle of Ages concentrates on puzzles, while Seasons focuses on action" is somewhat flawed. Ages has plenty of action and vice versa. The games lean toward action or puzzles, but doesn't concentrate on them. Also, I suggest you find references and add something that talks about how Seasons throws back to the original LOZ (tree "doors", old men with hints in the dungeons, the first dungeon, etc.) while Ages contains a better plot, like OOT. Legedevin 11:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this not two articles?

Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages are two complete, standalone games. Why are they treated with one article? If all games that use the the exact same engine as another should be merged into the article of the game engine they use, then be consistent. Merge Doom with Doom II and the like. Alternately, can someone link me to where the discussion on this actually took place? The T 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

See above for the merge discussion

Also, we don't cover much of the aspects exclusive to an individual game, like dungeons or items, unlike Doom and Doom II. If that happens then we will separate them, otherwise, it's redundant. Also, they share the same development history, which would also be redundant. Legedevin 21:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

i like these zelda games but they were a bit of a disappointment. they were so formulated at times, that they mayaswell be in one article 86.135.164.200 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this being one article. I always understood them to be essentially two halves of the same game, released at the same time to interact with each other, and playable in either order. I think that was pretty much the intention.Rglong 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Age of Empires Pic

Can someone get rid of the Age of Empires Pic? What is it doing in the middle of this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.196.114.8 (talk • contribs).

What are you talking about? Pagrashtak 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the issue yesterday. — Deckiller 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Linked ending prequel?

After the credits of the linked ending for The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons, Link is seen departing from Labrynna/Hololdrum in a ship with a sail towards a storm (seen in the "The End" screen). In The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, during the opening, Link is seen sailing in a storm, on a ship with a sail (rolled up, mind you). This suggests that The legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons are a prequel to The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening.

I posted this possibility on the page about a week ago, but it was removed for some reason. So I thought I'd bring this issue to the talk page. --Wiitbred 04:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I re-posted this possibility earlier today and it was again removed for "speculation". How is this speculation? Every one of the timeline theories fail to make this connection, why? It's so obvious! Wiitbred 23:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is speculation. They have never been officially labeled as the same Links, and that's what makes it speculation and WP:OR. It'd be different if they explicitly were the same Link, as is the case with Wind Waker/Phantom Hourglass and Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, but I did include the fact that the game ended with link sailing towards a storm and a picture of the shot. Wiitbred 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? Someone, once again, removed that section and my picture. Whoever removed it said "not notable and the picture was terrible". It is notable, it gives the reader some sort of context of some non-speculative continuity in the series. If it isn't notable, then please remove the section of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker when it says that Tetra and Link sail off together in search of new land. And if anyone can find a better picture of the ending shot of The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons linked ending, please do so if mine is so terrible. Wiitbred 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is terrible because it doesn't show anything of value and is a pointless use of copyrighted images. On top of that, you can't bother to actually give a fair use rationale to it. ' 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of pictures that are of no value (by your standards) in other Zelda pages, the picture of link waiving goodbye to his home is pointless, the picture of link delivering the finishing blow to ganondorf is pointless, the picture of the goddesses and the triforce in the Twilight Princess article is unnecessary. By your standards, all the plot sections of every game should include no pictures. I put that picture there because it looks nice. In my opinion, its the best landscape shot in that entire game. And if you want, I can get a better looking version of it. Wiitbred 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an actual argument that doesn't require comparison with other images? The simple matter is that your image shows the reader absolutely nothing. It's a boat on water. That doesn't merit calling upon fair use. ' 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is totally speculation, though you assumably stated it as fact. Upon its release, Link's Awakening was labeled by Nintendo as a sequel to LttP. If you are going to assume anything about the timeline, you might as well take the official word for it. Regardless, that information should at least be paired with your statement, and it would also be necessary to clarify that only "some people" draw that conclusion, while others do not. D.I. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

More (and better) screenshots

This article needs more and better screenshots. I think we could consider dropping those drawn images and substitute them with screenshots that would depict each game's plot. And, I don't like that the only screenshot of Oracle of Ages shows Link just standing around at the very beginning of the game, not using the harp or anything. I think what would be good is a comparison of past and present, and for Seasons, a comparison of the seasons. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Two other comments

1. I think we need to change the title to rearrange Seasons and Ages. In my experience, people put Ages before Seasons, as it rolls off the tongue better (well, that's my POV, but there's gotta be a reason why I hear people say it like that, right?). Also, Google hits for having Ages first are greater than the hits for Seasons first.

1. And I think that there should be three sections for gameplay - the main section would deal with the aspects of gameplay that span both games, while the separate sections would discuss how the gameplay is in either game, dealing in puzzles (for instance, Oracle of Ages has many puzzles Seasons doesn't have), as well as delving into Seasons and Ages changing, with an accompanying image showing a comparison of an area in each game and the differences between the seasons and ages there (ideally, they'd have plenty of differences, and would show off various aspects of the changes, such as flowers blooming in Spring, and a tree "dying" in the Winter, creating a new path). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the title, I disagree. I wrote the article with this order because this was the original intended order for the release of the games. I found that argument to be stronger than anything else. I've reverted the move to the original order based on this and the lack of anyone supporting the move. I don't see the need for additional sections under gameplay, but I'm open to different screenshots. I used what I could find when I wrote the article. Pagrashtak 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.195.233 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the game considered "canon"?

Nayru and Din appear in later games, is this game canon? Moogle 12 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, they (and Farore- the girl in the Hall of Secrets) appear in The Minish Cap as the result of a Kinstone fusion. Only two houses are available for the three oracles, they will give you potions according to who you decide to house. Both Din and Nayru mention Holodrum and Labryanna, respectively, when you talk to them, so I suppose that that would make the game canon. Punk reader 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course they're canon. Why wouldn't it be? Lots of characters reappear in later games, that's no reason to question canonization, and if it did, what's to say that the Minish Cap isn't the non-canonical one? Anyway, in this particular case i think it's safe to say either a). the MC and Oracle versions are descendants/ancestors to eachother, b). their satus as oracles entails superhuman lifespan or immortality, or c). that the recurrence of the characters is simple coincidental, not to be taken too seriously. D.I. (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fallacy

Although increasing the power of the shield or the quantity of bombs and Mystical Seeds held isn't needed to complete either game, upgrading the power of the sword is needed to complete the linked-game ending, as the sword Link originally wields doesn't have the power to injure Twinrova or Ganon.

That is not true, I have completed the games with the lowest level sword possible,which does indeed do damage. The difference is with anything except the MasterSword, only a spin attack will harm Twinrova or Ganon.I will go ahead and change this.67.166.221.245 (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I second this D.I. (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns

I'm not entirely sure this article meets WP:FA? image criterion in particular, WP:NFCC in general. There are six images in the article, with one being a composite of four separate screens. The character images and the covers excessively repeat Link and don't significantly contribute to reader understanding with minimal use. One of the box covers could be possibly removed, or (more germane) the character graphics could be removed. Image:Linkooa.png could be replaced by a more utilitarian shot (say, a screen from the linked ending showing the characters as they appear in the game.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Redirects

Why do both Zelda 7 and Zelda 8 redirect here? If these are considered one game for numbering purposes, it can't be both the seventh and the eighth.--Unscented (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just realized that they are, in fact, not considered one game for numbering purposes. Well, I guess I'd better sort out all the other redirect confusion this has caused.--Unscented (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of two cover arts

In response to this, I was just being bold. In any case, I don't really care about the image that I moved in the Gameplay section, but I do care about the two cover arts that are being used in the article. The Pokémon video game articles have been reduced to one cover art per article to comply with WP:NFCC, which I believe makes perfect sense. This article is the same to those articles in the sense that they all cover a set of games that are very similar (and more importantly, with almost identical cover arts.) This means that using two cover arts in the article does serve much purpose since the article can be equally represented by a single one. WP:NFCC states "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." but an extra cover art will not significantly help the reader, so having two images violates that policy. That is why I think there should only be one cover art in the article (I choose Seasons because it was listed first in the title, but it does not really matter.) Artichoker^[talk] 03:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see this issue was also addressed a month or two ago by David Fuchs two sections above this one. Artichoker^[talk] 03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to that we removed the two character images. There wasn't any further push there, but I understand things change over time. I'm going to sit on this one and see what others have to say. If you'd leave the article in the current state for now, I'd appreciate it, to avoid deleting one of the images while we decide. Pagrashtak 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I notified WT:VG of this discussion. Artichoker^[talk] 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That this article is the fruits of a merge says we should keep the two lead images. It's not like RuSa where they're box arts for the same game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine, as they are two separate games and even though their box arts may *look* the same, it doesn't change that fact. Mega Man Battle Network 3 uses 2 boxarts as well.--_ZXCVBNM 18:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

@TNARH: RuSa are two separate games. @ZXCVBNM: It doesn't matter if they are two separate games, if an image doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic, then that image violates WP:NFCC and should be removed. In this case, having an extra cover art does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article, so one of the cover arts should be removed. The same should be done to Mega Man Battle Network 3. Artichoker^[talk] 18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to articulate this effectively, but somehow I feel that having the two cover arts does enhance one's understanding if they know nothing about the games. Belasted (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you say that it doesn't increase a reader's understanding? What if they want to know what the other version's box looks like? Moreover, putting priority of one box over another box would be an example of bias.--_ZXCVBNM 19:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My initial concern when I brought up images earlier was that there were too many nonfree images in general, in particular the cast elements that were highly redundant. That said, the removal dealt with many of the issues. The infobox caption could be made to point out that the main villain and respective oracle appear behind link in the art, and that Link carries the harp and rod of seasons in each; that should help strengthen their rationales. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Two covers is fine here. The difference between this game and Pokemon is that 2 Pokemon games are essentially the same; characters, locations, most pokemon you can catch, events, etc. Only a few select Pokemon are unique for catching in each version. That is not the same with these 2 games. If you played Oracle of Seasons it gives you only the vaguest idea of what Oracle of Time is suppose to be like.

We have a total of 8 unique pictures on the page (some of them combined), all of which are used to describe 2 games; not 1 game that has a different version. Given that if this were 2 articles and the aggregate number of images would be 4 on each page, that's perfectly reasonable since all the pictures help distinguish important aspects of the gameplay that is much easier to due visually.じんない 20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The only reason the games are together on one page is because of the similarity in development history, etc. They are completely separate games. Both boxarts should be there. The whole point of using boxarts is for IDing, it's not a "one per article" rule so much as it is "as little as possible". In this case, it just so happens that the two are in the same article space, but neither is no less a game because of this. Common sense applies here.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, consensus says that the two cover arts should be kept. Fair enough. Artichoker^[talk] 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I suppose the matter is resolved now, but I was also going to say that two should be present as they are both completely separate games (unlike the Pokemon ones) and reducing the image would not be a case of minimal usage, but rather a case of simply omitting the box art of a particular game in much the same way as omitting it on it's own article.

I would be wary of removing box arts though. One image is the minimum, not the maximum. There are plenty of valid reasons why they should remain (unequal representation being a strong one), but as mentioned above, this is particularly unique instance where common sense prevails because these games aren't merely alternate versions of each other and are indeed only grouped due to development and release history and compatibility with each other. --.:Alex:. 17:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand

Why is mentioned this "The game features a brighter color palette when played on a Nintendo Game Boy Advance in order to make up for the darkness of the screen, and a special shop is also made available" at the introduction and only there? I don't think it should be there, and if mentioned in the body of the article it should explain that feature a little more. OboeCrack (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do now, OboeCrack (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A foreigner here uses the word that jeers the Japanese named JAP.

Original Japanese title. ゼルダの伝説 ふしぎの木の実

It is necessary to write the etymology in the country of the origin. Zelda is not a game of the United States. 60.33.39.35 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference material

Found a couple of Game Informer reviews for this game:

• Review 1
• Review 2 JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A small detail

The article comes off as biased to me. It states things like Okomoto threatening Miyamoto, and I could not find the supposed reference anywhere. All I found was a youtube video with an interview that stated quite the opposite, where it's clearly stated that Miyamoto agreed from the beginning. While this might not be true either, I am almost certain the threat isn't real. Another thing was that Miyamoto suggested the trilogy. The interview I found states that Miyamoto simply approved the idea.

Long story short, I believe the development section could use a little overhaul. Redgamehunter (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

These details were all included in an Okamoto interview conducted by the magazine Total! in their December 1999 issue. Translated passages:

Total! Mr. Okamoto, they say you have always liked Zelda. Is that right?

Okamoto Yes, I especially liked the Zelda for the Famicom Disk System. But Nintendo just won't bring it over to the Game Boy Color. So I said to Miyamoto that I would produce the game, but we didn't come to a clear agreement. So in the end, I threatened him.

Total! How did you threaten him?

Okamoto I said that if Nintendo did not want to do it, we would just release an identical game with different characters and give it another title. Of course they didn't agree with that either. But because of that, we were asked to develop the real thing.

Total! Whose idea was it to make three episodes out of the game?

Okamoto That was Mr. Miyamoto's. He suggested that the "power" episode would contain many action elements, and that the "wisdom" episode would contain numerous puzzles. I found that very interesting. I often meet Mr. Miyamoto to exchange new ideas. Most of the ideas come from him...

Could you post the YouTube interview that states the opposite? Prime Blue (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Oracle of Ages GBC cartridge.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Oracle of Ages GBC cartridge.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Oracle of Ages GBC cartridge.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential TFA

I'm eyeing this for a 15th anniversary TFA (14 May 2016 is not too far away!) and was thinking that a bit more on the 2013 port should be included. I'll try and get something worked up, but my access to sources on VGs is not stellar. If anyone can help, that would be great. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nintendo.com/home/features/spaceworld/99/zeldagb.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010235353/http://www.gamesradar.com/12-classic-game-boy-and-game-boy-color-games-we-want-on-3ds/ to http://www.gamesradar.com/f/12-classic-game-boy-and-game-boy-color-games-we-want-on-3ds/a-20110119172340571046

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070321065052/http://www.zelda.com/universe/game/oracleseasons/walk.jsp to http://www.zelda.com/universe/game/oracleseasons/walk.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428113550/http://www.zelda.com/universe/game/oracleages/walk.jsp to http://www.zelda.com/universe/game/oracleages/walk.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100925065054/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/spacew99/itiran/gb/page03.html to https://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/spacew99/itiran/gb/page03.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

mistake in IGN article

I noticed that the article cites an IGN article saying that Mystical Seed of Courage was changed to Oracle of Ages and that Mystical Seed of Wisdom was cancelled, but the IGN article seems to be wrong about that. Mystical Seed of Wisdom is much more likely to be Oracle of Ages since Oracle of Ages features Nayru, which is the god of wisdom in the Zelda universe. User:Alicegremlin 4:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Going over the source, here are the notable quotes with a breakdown:

• One game was to focus on action (Chapter of Power), one was to focus on puzzles (Chapter of Wisdom), while the gameplay focus of the third (Chapter of Courage) was never officially announced. Right here, we have the Chapter of Wisdom being the puzzle based game. Courage has no known focus.
• Each was also to have a theme -- (...) The Tale of Wisdom was to use a color theme, with various events and areas and tools built around certain colors; The Tale of Courage was to have the theme of time, where you could need to use morning, noon, evening and night in order to solve various riddles in this game. Here we have Wisdom being color based and Courage being time based.
• Each was also to have its own Oracle as the pivotal character of the story -- (...) Nayru in the Tale of Courage, and the lost Oracle Farore in Tale of Wisdom. Here seems to be the problematic claim where Nayru is Courage and Farore is Wisdom, reverse of the norm. As our own article notes with citations, Nayru ended up being the Oracle of Ages.
• Mystical Seed of Power became Oracle of Seasons and Mystical Seed of Courage became Oracle of Ages, and both were released in 2001. The third chapter, Mystical Seed of Wisdom, was never finished, and it is unknown how much of the game was ever completed or how much was re-created in future Zelda titles. The main line that we are citing from. Power → Seasons, Courage → Ages, and Wisdom → (cancelled).
• This leads to the following: Mystical Seed of Wisdom was to be the puzzle based game using a color theme (assumption: presumably like with LA:DX) while Courage had the time theme that Ages ended up having. However, things shifted and Courage/Ages became the puzzle based game revolving around time when Wisdom was cancelled. It truly seems that what happened was that Wisdom got cancelled, making Courage/Ages the puzzle themed game instead, either by default or by changes made during development. If we were to try to reverse this, then we have the problem that Nayru's Wisdom game was puzzle based with a color theme while Farore's Courage game was time based with an unknown theme; if this were the case, then Farore would be in the Courage/Ages game instead of Nayru from Wisdom. It doesn't seem to make much sense that what happened was that Nintendo cancelled Wisdom, then had Wisdom's characters and story moved to Courage/Ages.

Granted, this doesn't mean that we are not wrong in this and that IGN is actually mistaken. Wikidata has an item id called The Legend of Zelda: Mystical Seed of Courage that claims it is the "canceled sequel to both Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages" instead. This means we have an unusual conflict between two projects. That is troubling enough with the Nayru is Courage and Farore is Wisdom concern that I have tagged the section using Template:Disputed section for now. Perhaps someone will be able to come across with a better source for this, including potentially a Japanese source, to help determine what is going on. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

And to make this confusion even more of a problem, Commons claims to have a logo of Mystical Seed of Courage that I was unable to reverse search online. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)