Talk:The Legend of Zelda LCD games

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past plot synopsis

User:Thibbs requested a translation of this material for this section.

---

Legend of Zelda

Triforce of the Gods

The sacred lands of the Triforce have been transformed to the "World of Darkness" which reflect Ganon's ambitions. But Ganon was still not satisfied, and is plotting to make Hairal, the "World of Light", into his own. To make this happen, the daughters of the seven sages must be sacrificed, and the seal broken. And now, through the hand of the priest Aknim, that is about to be realized.

You are the hero who must venture through the worlds of light and dark to defeat Ganon, the king of wickedness who is the root of all malice. There are sure to be plenty of puzzles and monsters awaiting you. The Legend of Zelda is about to start.

---

--Paul Richter (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Old Man

If you look carefully at the LCD screen near the hearts display, there is a short, old man casting magic with a wand. Does anyone have any idea what triggers him to appear?

Fair use rationale for Image:Zelda Game & Watch Gallery 4 remake.png

Image:Zelda Game & Watch Gallery 4 remake.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Official titles for these games

User:Darkhunger and I had a conversation a week ago (here) that I would like to get external opinions about. Darkhunger had noticed that the modern trend of Nintendo seems to be that they are renaming their current-day versions of the Game & Watch games. The original stand-alone games were titled simply "Ball", "Flagman", "Parachute", "Donkey Kong Jr.", etc. The GBA collections also seem to have used these names (based on the instruction manuals). The Mini Classic versions also appear to have used this format. The modern DSi/3DS versions, however, have been renamed by Nintendo to "Game & Watch: Ball" (or "Game & Watch™: Ball"), "Game & Watch: Flagman", "Game & Watch: Donkey Kong Jr.", etc.
Because the Zelda game has not been released for DSi/3DS yet, Darkhunger and I agreed that it would be best to use the original title "Zelda" for now. This is the title that was used in the original standalone game (according to its instruction manual), the Mini Classic version (according to the cover-art), and the Game & Watch Gallery 4 port (by analogy to the other titles in its instruction manual. The game's title is not actually mentioned since it's an unlockable game).
But the question still remains whether Wikipedia should refer to the Zelda game as "Game & Watch: Zelda" if/when it is released for DSi/3DS and assuming that they keep the renaming system the same. My opinion is that it should stay titled with its original release title (i.e. simply "Zelda") even if a renamed version is eventually released. Such a renaming should of course be mentioned in the body of the article though (in the lede for the subsection preferably) if/when it happens. Does that sound reasonable? -Thibbs (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just want to note that this format is not a renaming... Its how Nintendo refer to these games - for example, see how the official Game & Watch "Iwata Asks" interview reference the games here: http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/clubn/game-and-watch-ball-reward/0/0 It makes sense, since Game & Watch is not a console. Each is its own game and is part of the Game and Watch series, so the "title" is actually a subtitle and the game is called "Game & Watch". As such I still think "Game & Watch: Zelda" should be the correct title.--Darkhunger (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be anything but a renaming, though, considering that they originally named it simply by its subtitle. So for instance the original 1980 game was called "Ball", and not "Game & Watch: Ball". This new term ("Game & Watch: [TITLE]") only began to be used within the last 2 years (since 2009). The name "Zelda" is the only title that appears on the 1989 instruction manual which suggests to me that Nintendo's new term, "Game & Watch: Zelda" (circa 2011?), is a renaming. -Thibbs (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

All game covers, manual covers, etc, show the Game & Watch logo, as well as the individual title of the game. So if Nintendo is saying that "Game & Watch" logo is in fact part of the title of the game, then that's what they should be called.

EDIT - I think a good comparison would be the "Classic NES Series" released by Nintendo for the GameBoy Advance... You have Mario games, Zelda games, etc. released under this "title", even though they don't appear as one logo on the covers. However, when written in text, the games still officially follow the "Classic NES Series:TITLE" format, ie "Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros." is the official title of the game--Darkhunger (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Classic NES Series was released as a new series in 2004 so it isn't that surprising that Nintendo would use the "Classic NES Series:TITLE" format. I'm not sure how much force this argument has, though, considering that throughout Wikipedia these games are simply referred to by their original titles and not the "Classic NES Series:TITLE" format. To use your analogy, it would be as if you were suggesting that we should rename the original "The Legend of Zelda" game to "Classic NES Series: Zelda" since that's what Nintendo has renamed it as. Obviously that would be silly. We shouldn't use a modern renamed title instead of the original title.

The cover of the original game can be seen here, and the cover of the original instruction manual for the Game & Watch Zelda looks like this:

GAME&WATCH™ MULTI SCREEN ZELDA™ INSTRUCTION Nintendo® (ZL-65) ©1989 Nintendo

I could possibly see an argument for calling the game "Game & Watch Multi Screen Zelda" but given the fact that the term "Zelda™" is so much larger and differently colored and generally more prominent it looks to me like its title is simply "Zelda". The term "Game & Watch Multi Screen" is included because it is part of the Game & Watch series, but the term "Nintendo" is also included for the same reason. Just because this game falls within Nintendo's pantheon doesn't mean we would officially title it "Nintendo Zelda" or even "Game & Watch Nintendo Zelda". Typographical logistics aside, it is clear from the GBA Game & Watch Gallery manuals that the games (at least through 2002) have always been referred to (by Nintendo) simply with what you describe above as the subtitle. Look at page 5 of the instruction manual for Game & Watch Gallery 3. It describes 5 games using the following terms:

• "Parachute"
• "Helmet"
• "Chef"
• "Vermin"
• "Donkey Kong"

The "Game & Watch: [TITLE]" format doesn't show up even once. This term is a new one. It only began to be used within the last 2 years (since 2009). What I see here is a line of late 80s to early 90s games each with different simple names all released in the Game & Watch format that are seeing a revival among retro enthusiasts and which Nintendo has officially renamed with the standard term "Game & Watch: [TITLE]". Because this is an issue of renaming and not of historical correction, I'd still be inclined to use the original titles that Nintendo used. -Thibbs (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We agree to disagree. Game & Watch is not a "format". Its not a Gameboy or a DS. It is a series of handheld games with different themes and looks that Nintendo has identified as being part of a series. I think their method of naming these games, whether retrospective or not, should have a HUGE say on what they are referred to, as they are the ones who manufacture the games in the first place. Things in this encyclopedia are identified by their modern names, not their historical ones.

As for Classic NES Series games, I have no doubts that the GBA ports themselves should indeed be referred to as "Classic NES Series: TITLE", and any references otherwise is incorrect, but I fail to see why the originals should be renamed. I am strictly discussing the names that Nintendo is using for the ORIGINAL Game & Watch releases, which they are referring to by a certain way. --Darkhunger (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. To be clear, I think that our disagreement lies strictly in whether or not the renaming (my term) or retrospective naming (your term) should be used in place of the original name (my term) or the historical name (your term). The point is moot since the Zelda Game & Watch game has not been released for DSi/3DS, but it would be good to hear some external opinions on the matter before it is released. -Thibbs (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(NOTE: Also just to add one quick comment, Wikipedia doesn't favor modern names to historical ones per se. The applicable rules are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

Plot for Nelsonic's Zelda

I've been on the search for proper references for this game for a while and although I have found some, I have yet to find anything to support the notion that the Dragon (as it is called in the game's manual) is actually Aquamentus. In fact, I also cannot find any evidence that the dragons are sons and a father or that the game even takes place in Hyrule. The plot that we have is very imaginative compared to the exceptionally thin plot given in the manual and if what we have is correct it would certainly be preferable, but at this point I simply cannot find any references for it and so I must conclude that it is a fan creation.

I am going to remove the plot we have listed for this game and I will replace it with the weak plot listed in the manual, but I'm copying the text that I'll remove below so that it can be restored if adequate sources can ever be recovered to bolster it (note: sources such as zeldapedia and zeldawiki do support several elements like the identification of the Dragon as Aqamentus, but they ar not RSes). I've also written to the originator of the information to ask him for sources, but it's an anonymous IP and he hasn't edited since mid-2005 so I am not very hopeful... Anyway, without further ado here is the portion I am removing:

The kingdom of Hyrule is attacked by a monster king called Aquamentus along with his three sons. They shatter the Triforce into four pieces, steal the fragments, and take over the three sacred dungeons. This puts Hyrule into chaos. Bitter fighting breaks out between monster forces, and many Hylian soldiers lose their lives. Link must defeat the monsters and retrieve the Triforce to save Hyrule.

Please help me find sources for this so that we can restore it if it is accurate. -Thibbs (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictorial evidence shows the dragon is an Aquamentus, both the in game graphic and the manual shows an Aquamentus You can tell because of the single horn on the head of the dragon which clearly shows it's species. However, the quote directly conflicts with the game manual in several ways. First, there are four caves, not 3. They are caves, not dungeons. The rest of the statement, about the killing and the king seems to not based on anything. Orpheus Rex (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We would need more than pictorial evidence. Reliable sources would have to make the claim that the dragon is Aquamentus. As editors we're not allowed to speculate since it violates WP:OR. -Thibbs (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Images

Unfortunately, we cannot sustain three images on this article. The article's subject is LCD games from the Zelda series; as such, the images need to represent that and not their own games. Therefore, only one can claim to do that, while the others must show that they're necessary to enhance understanding of the subject. The idea that a cover is necessary for a game is only true if the game has its own article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There are only three LCD games in the series. Each is radically different from the other two. A single covershot is not adequate to represent them all. Why do you think the article cant' sustain three images? It covers three different games whose only similarity is that they use LCD technology. If there were 20 games in the series requiring 20 different covershots then I'd agree with you, but 3? That easily meets WP:FAIRUSE. -Thibbs (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The article cannot sustain three images that all seek to do the same thing. Three is not the limit of how many images an article can have. For example Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! has only one fair use image and uses two free use images. To the contrary, The Beatles: Rock Band has several images because it justifies them all. If an article has three images, it needs to be able to show that these three images are necessary. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Each of the three images is a covershot and each is justified by the normal justification for all covershots across the WikiProject. A covershot is intended to serve as the primary visual image associated with the work, to help the reader quickly identify the work and to assure the reader that they have reached the article they were looking for. If we have an article about three different works, it stands to reason that 3 different covers should be represented. The do not all seek to do the same thing any more than the images at The Beatles: Rock Band all have the same function of illustrating the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In The Beatles Rock Band, we have: a cover, a screenshot to show the game's mechanics, six free use images, a screenshot to show the parallel between the game's depiction of the Ed Sullivan Show appearance, a screenshot to demonstrate how they achieve the graphics that they did to make them appear similar to The Beatles' soundtracks, and a screenshot to show its development from E3 to now. In this article, it's simply visually demonstrating LCD Zelda games. There's no critical commentary for them, and the fact that they are only notable enough to be grouped together in this article says that they aren't notable enough to need one image per. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Critical commentary is not the reason for covershots. Again, the purpose of a covershot is to provide visual identification and assurance. This is true WP:VG-wide. If we had to come up with additional justifications for every covershot then more than 90% of them would need to be removed. This article is about three very different games so it's silly to use one covershot to represent them all. Again, three covershots for three games made by three different companies easily meets WP:FAIRUSE. There is zero market impact on Nintendo, Nelsonic, or Epoch from a single low-res covershot used educationally. The use of an excessive number of nonfree images is discouraged because collectively they have a stronger market impact against the copyright owner that just a few. Here we have three different images used according to the standard NFUR cover/boxart rationale whose potential impact touches three different copyright holders. There is no argument for aggregated market effect. There is no benefit to removing the images because they are not excessive. It would only weaken the article. -Thibbs (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The argument that you have made is not acceptable; very few of the images on Wikipedia for video games can actually cause any impact on the related companies. If your argument was true, Wikipedia would not apply fair use guidelines to video games at all. According to non-free content guideline, cover art MUST be related to critical commentary. The justification for their use in video games is that the subject is notable, therefore there is value in representing the subject at hand. For any further cover art this falls apart because the rationale - representing the subject of the article - is only acceptable for one image in the article. If you think that the three games are notable enough for their own articles, then feel free. Until then, having the majority of images in the article be cover art is not conducive to a quality article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not an acceptable justification for an image to be used simply because its subject is notable. That's a misinterpretation of the guidelines. The reason given in NFURs for covershots is almost always to provide identification and assurance that the reader is at the correct article to find critical commentary on the topic. Nothing more and nothing less. Look at the NFUR for the covershot of today's featured article. It states in relevant part "Purpose of use: The image is used to identify a video game, a subject of public interest. The significance of the box art is to help the reader identify the game, assure the reader they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the game, and illustrate the nature of the game in a way that words alone could not convey." (emphasis added). That's the standard boxart/coverart NFUR language for covershots in all WP:VG articles and that's exactly the purpose for them in this article. Three images is not an excessive number and each one is providing identification and assurance services to readers. If we were to reduce it to one image - your edit reduced it to the image of the Game & Watch game's cover - then we would be seriously undermining the ability of the image to identify the topic and to assure readers that they were at the right article for critical commentary of anything but the Game & Watch game. -Thibbs (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is three different game articles merged as one. The article is about each one. Showing the cover image of a game in its infobox is acceptable. Since we have three games, we have three cover images. Dream Focus 22:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of gameplay for Zelda(G&W)

I just finished playing the game. The game does not "restart" when you beat the dragon. You have to beat 8 dragons to collect the eight scattered pieces of the triforce to free a princess(Zelda)who is being kept at the far top left corner of the screen, above the items. Additionally the description implies that there is a single room in between dragons when there is a whole dungeon filled with moblin rooms with several possible paths through each dungeon. Orpheus Rex (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand completely. Are you saying that the phrase "labyrinth chambers" is misleading and that instead the game has "dungeon filled with moblin rooms"? The instruction manual on page 5 describes the Goblin enemy as "liv[ing] in each of the chambers of the labyrinth" so I think the article is better as written. Regarding the game restarting, the listed source (IGN) states that "[w]hen you beat the game, you are given a second quest with harder bosses." IGN is listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS and its claims are corroborated by the instruction manual which on page 11 states that "[f]rom the second round starts, enemies move slightly faster and your score is carried over from the previous round." It also mentions subsequent rounds after the second round. I know there are several different versions of the game, though. Perhaps IGN is reviewing a different version that the one you played. Did you play the original Game & Watch version, or the Mini Classic version, or the Game & Watch Gallery 4 version? -Thibbs (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LCD games from The Legend of Zelda series. 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/20080906113411/http://www.the-king-of-games.com/tencho/collection003.html to http://www.the-king-of-games.com/tencho/collection003.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Game & Watch - Zelda.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

How come is there no separate page for the Game & Watch: The Legend of Zelda?

How come is there no separate page for the Game & Watch: The Legend of Zelda? One time when I was trying to create the article it automatically redirected me to The Legend of Zelda page, and now the article is now on the page. A long time ago I made loads of fake Zelda draft articles for the series 35th anniversary even to the point where I said if its not real please don't delete this article (which have all been deleted now as of April and May 2021). Since the Game & Watch: Super Mario Bros. has its own article, how come does the Zelda version not have its own. I am sorry for making all of the now deleted fake draft articles. I used to think if there was a separate page, it would be a copy and paste from the Mario version article while also changing a lot of words. I was also going to make fake Metroid ones when I decided not too. That is the thing I need to know. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• G and W-TLOZ package.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)