Talk:Hyrule Warriors

CHECK GUYS! MORE IMAGES
Source: http://tomatebleuet.tumblr.com/post/86421998927/impa-looks-so-good-i-cant-wait-to-play-as-her Looks amazing! --Isamisa (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

OBJECTION!
Huuuuuuge problem with direct copy-pasting of marketing materials. What was wrong with the style of coverage we had earlier?KrytenKoro (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Found some enemy types
As we already know, we have the OoT/MM variations of the Stalchild from artwork and and King Dodongo from the beta trailer, while also having SS versions of Bokoblin & Lizalfos from the trailer and early screenshots. But various people online were able to find other enemies that havent been officially announced, but we have seen from promotional artworks. On an artwork posted on the official Hyrule Warriors Facebook we are shown the SS's Stalmaster and TP's Argorok. And just recently an add on famitsu has shown the TP variation of the Darknut. Is this enough to start filling out the enemies page? Ixbran (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we even sure at this point that these are the enemies that will be in the final build? I was interpreting them as placeholder designs to showcase the intended mechanics.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the games plot revolves around a ' sealed evil ' being split into 4 parts, 1 being sealed in the master sword, and 3 being sent to the "depths of space-time". It's possible Cia could be pulling monsters from other parts of the Zelda timeline, specifically the parts where the 3 pieces of the sealed evil could have been sent. We have enemies from 3 periods of time in the timeline so far; Skward Sword enemies, Ocarina of Time/Majoras Mask Enemies, and Twilight Princess enemies. Not to mention if the initial skyward sword enemy designs in the beta trailer were just placeholders, they would have been changed by now. We know the game was 70% done when the official website became available online, so it's obvious they are very far in development. If they weren't going to use these enemy designs in the final product, they wouldn't be used in official media when the game is so close to being finished. Ixbran (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm hardly on the forefront of the Hyrule Warriors news, but this whole thing about the Triforce being sealed/sent into the Master Sword and space-time sounds like absurd fan-speculation. Could you please provide a source for this information?
 * I agree with Kryten on this that they're very likely placeholder images, but it would do little harm to create the page with the enemies, since as far as we can tell, they're elements of the game just as other pictures are. If it's revealed that they're not in the game, then we can remove them and point it out in some trivia section.
 * Either way, I would definitely like some sources for your claims. It's information we don't have, so if it's true, we should add it. If it's false/unconfirmed, then I suppose I'd just ask that you stop perpetuating it. 23:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not to sound rude, but the fact that you're ' hardly on the forefront ' of Hyrule Warriors is obvious. "this whole thing about the Triforce being sealed/sent into the Master Sword and space-time sounds like absurd fan-speculation." 1stly, it wasn't the triforce that was sealed, it was a "Great Evil" 2ndly this is from the official website, and its even written in the story/plot section of the hyrule warriors page, and its been there for a long while.  This isnt fan speculation, this is what translators got when translating the storyline section from the official website. Just check the official websites gallery section. They are still using the Skyward Sword variation of the moblins. And even the official twitter has updated with screen shots not on the website still using the SS Lizaldfos. They cant be place holders because the game is too far in development for them to be.  Remember, this game is scheduled to be released in 2 months in japan, that being August 14th. Were getting a new trailer, and a playable demo of Hyrule Warriors this upcoming E3. And again when the official website was launched, Koei announced via Twitter that the game was 70% completed, and with a playable demo being available at E3, their obviously further along than that. Ixbran (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Then, as I've said, we should be putting this information into articles. However, as a rule of thumb, I don't believe it's impossible for the images or other things within the official media to be tentative. Nothing is really set in stone until it's released, regardless of how quickly the release is coming.
 * Regardless, I've taken the effort to create the page since we can argue indefinitely. I've included all of the aforementioned enemies within it, considering them strictly as enemies (until confirmed to be bosses or otherwise). It would be great if we could get some images in there. 07:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want I can take clear screen shots of the enemy types, crop them to focus mainly on them, and upload them as .png files. Then when we can get our hands on official renders we can simply upload the renders over the screen shot crops, if that is alright with you. Ixbran (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hyrule Warriors info via famitsu leak: Zelda and Midna confirmed playable.
http://s13.zetaboards.com/koeiwarriors/single/?p=9750585&t=7134890

Some people have gotten ahold of this weeks famitsu early. Standard for Koei's warriors games, according to other sources Zelda will fight with an enchanted sword and will also use a bow. Midna is in human form, and fights with her hair and can summon wolves made from shadows to attack on her behalf. Ixbran (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

they were shown off during E3, its confirmed both are indeed playable. However Midna is in her Imp form, not her human form. Ixbran (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Canon
It is canon... but in a weird way:
 * Is Hyrule Warriors canon? Does it fit in the Zelda timeline?


 * Aonuma: Within the Zelda canon, there is the timeline, but there has always been the sense of the main story and kind of a side story. Like, Majora's Mask might be considered part of that, though it does exist as part of the timeline. With Hyrule Warriors, there is a link between the two, but it exists as a separate dimension, so it doesn't exist as part of the main canon. Lately I have been thinking of it similar to The Avengers. Each of the characters has their own timeline, so there shouldn't be any crossover there, but maybe they've been brought together as part of that story?


 * So it doesn't slot anywhere in the timeline that we know of?


 * Aonuma: Maybe if you force it in somewhere, but that's not something we want to do. The universe of Hyrule Warriors really is sort of a different universe and it is connected to the timeline of the Zelda series, but it is connected to several different games throughout the series. If you try and force this into it here [Aonuma places his hands in the air indicating different levels of the timeline], then…that information might not be complete. We really don't want to put it in the timeline because it has links to the different parts of the timeline.

Source: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/06/11/eiji-aonuma-addresses-hyrule-warriors-place-in-the-zelda-timeline.aspx .--LordM (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So I guess it is in it's own timeline, or "dimension" as Aounma puts it, so we could add it to pages as a fourth timeline unrelated to the other three called "Separate Dimension" or something.--LordM (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "so it doesn't exist as part of the main canon", "We really don't want to put it in the timeline". I guess that's enough to call it non-canon. And I don't really see the point in making another timeline just for a spin-off. Chuck (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you're misinterpreting it, LordM.
 * Aonuma states that it's in its own universe, not timeline. It doesn't make it a fourth timeline just because it interacts with different points on it. If anything, this confirms it's non-canon, and I'm evidently not the only one who thinks this. What this interview implies is that Hyrule Warriors is more of a "what if" story similar to the Super Smash Bros. series, so it simply cannot be canon. It borrows elements from the timelines to create its own narrative, but it can't fit back into the timeline at all. So I agree with Chuck that it's safe to call it non-canon.
 * Even without this information, it was veering dangerously towards non-canon anyway, with imp-form Midna (using pseudo-Wolf Link) among other things. 06:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't say it's non-canon he says it's not as part of the main canon, and exists in it's own dimension.--LordM (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't fit into any given point the timeline and exists in an alternate universe (to reiterate: a "what if" story), I say that's a dead-on sign that it's non-canon. 17:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lets wait until the game it out. It's not long now. Once it's out we can decide if the "alternate dimension" thing actually COULD work (thus making it a side-story that is potentially canon but not part of the timeline) or if it's just a buncha "what-if", in which case it's non-canon. It seems silly to argue this right now because what Aonuma said can be taken both ways depending on which part of the interview you read. Plus it was translated and sometimes translations are questionable. I suspect it's not canon but it seems silly to speak in absolutes before the game is even finished. The fact that he speaks of the characters being "drawn together" and mentions The Avengers makes it potentially a little more than a random what-if. I don't want to really relegate this game to Soul Calibur status off the bat because it is a genuine Zelda game, even if it is a spin-off. You could, at this point, argue that all he meant it is that it is not canon to the timeline, like Link's Crossbow Training, but is still ambiguous as part of the series. Basically this game seems like a unique case at the moment. 21:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Zelda Wiki considers a game to be "canon" if it fits into the main storyline as backed by Hyrule Historia. This game features characters from multiple points in Hyrule's very long history, including the moon from MM, Impa from the SS era, and imp form Midna. This would be completely impossible. In addition, the game is literally a Dynasty Warriors game skinned with LoZ characters and backdrops. As such, it only makes sense to consider this non-canon. There's really no room for debate, here. It's the same concept as when Zelda characters appeared in the SSB series. 10:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "plus it was translated and sometimes translations are questionable" - I have a big issue with this. Yes, translations are often imperfect, but you shouldn't just cast doubt on translations in general; if you have a specific issue with this translation, then elaborate. Moreover, translation issue rarely affect the meaning of the entire paragraph; here, it seems clear from the context that the translation was accurate (and don't forget the hand gestures). -- Snorlax Monster  12:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically I'm just saying I'd be happier if we could see an interview in Japanese text, since some words have translations and some don't. I'm not even sure if there is an equivalent to the word "canon" in Japanese. It's not a big deal, it's just that it's diluted by two sources (the translator and the interviewer) rather than being a direct copy of what Aonuma said. It's just that interviews like this have been known to cause confusion in the past. Fairly sure the infamous "Miyamoto Timeline" spawned from an interview similar to this one. I'm not saying this happened this time or is likely to have done, but nuances can be lost. Not a big deal, just making a small point really. 18:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "The game is literally a Dynasty Warriors game skinned with LoZ characters and backdrops"... seems kind of irrelevant and needlessly dismissive. Aside from the gameplay style, it has no connection to the Dynasty Warriors series. As for the story, we know nothing about it in any detail yet. Could the "alternate dimension" thing actually be part of the story? Super Smash Bros. is a bad example because the characters in that are trophies in the SSB universe, while the characters in this might literally be the same characters but "drawn into" another dimension from points in a timeline. We don't know this for sure yet. I'm not saying it's likely to be canon, fairly sure it isn't, but I kind of figured the "ambiguously canon" thing was ideal for situations like this. What's the point of having that at all if something is either canon to the timeline or not canon to the timeline? We might as well just say everything not listed in Hyrule Historia is non-canon if we go down that route.
 * Sorry, I don't want to cause a big argument about it. I'm just saying that right now we don't know the whole story and it wouldn't hurt to keep options a little open rather than simply assuming off the bat that it has NO relation to the canon whatsoever. It may not be part of the timeline but suggesting it's not even canon to the franchise is a bit much, no? It's clearly VERY respectful of the source material from what we've seen and has a LOT of Nintendo involvement in it.
 * Perhaps there needs to be some nuance between whether something is part of the timeline and whether something is part of the series. For instance, the cartoons are not really part of the Zelda series, but this is definitely a Zelda game. Maybe I'm just misreading the use of the term "canon" here? 18:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just thinking out loud here, but I think the issue stems here from it being a spin-off. There are barely any spin-offs of the Zelda series, but it might be a good idea if we had a separate way of dealing with them. At the moment it's sort of being treated alongside Super Smash Bros. and Soul Calibur, which aren't Zelda games at all, and I think that's what bothers me. Might be more effort than it's worth, but... just a thought. 19:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What's the point of having that at all if something is either canon to the timeline or not canon to the timeline? We might as well just say everything not listed in Hyrule Historia is non-canon if we go down that route.
 * The flaw in this logic is that the ambiguously canon titles don't interfere with/contradict the timeline, so they're  canon. If they contradicted the timeline in any significant way, then I'd very readily call them non-canon. Whether it's listed in HH is irrelevant to that.
 * Just thinking out loud here, but I think the issue stems here from it being a spin-off.
 * To the contrary, I think the issue is that the issue is moreso that it seems disrespectful to dismiss the game as non-canon. That's not remotely why I'm on the side for non-canonicity; I'm excited for its release and I think it'll be a great game, but as said before, it can't fit into the timeline. The way it's described, the elements cannot be taken out and then put back in, so it is strictly a what-if story in the same regard as Super Smash. Bros being a what-if story (and "figurines" have nothing to do with that, since Brawl doesn't take that approach).
 * Perhaps there needs to be some nuance between whether something is part of the timeline and whether something is part of the series. For instance, the cartoons are not really part of the Zelda series, but this is definitely a Zelda game.
 * However, Hyrule Warriors isn't a part of the series in the way that you describe. There is no doubt that this is a Zelda game, but that in no way guarantees an inherent value of canonicity. Core members of Nintendo have had their hands in the creation of manga (the SS manga in particular, for instance), but that doesn't give those any more credit either.
 * In any case, this is distracting from the main points. The facts are:
 * Hyrule Warriors is not part of the main series.
 * HW cannot fit into the timeline, as described in the interview.
 * Zelda Wiki does not recognize games that fail to reasonably fit into the timeline as canon or ambiguously canon.
 * You are correct in that there are few spin-off titles, but I see no flaw in our means of evaluating a given game's relation to the timeline. I think giving spin-offs special treatment simply because they're spin-offs would be a messy ordeal. 22:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I largely agree with you, but I still think Aonuma was being quite careful with his use of "alternate dimension" and stuff. Perhaps it does not negatively affect the timeline whatsoever? That has yet to be seen. We don't know how characters like Midna are brought into the world or what state they are in at the end of the game. It's possible that the game does work to essentially make sure that the characters that are "drawn into" the world are brought in via a potentially canon method, even if the remainder of the game (the world depicted with Zelda, Link and Impa) is not actually canon to the rest of the timeline. Or, maybe it's just straight up not canon and the whole world in the game is a facsimile of the entire Zelda universe. I agree the latter is more likely, but it's possible that the former might still be the case. It could be that the timeline gets messed up during the game, drawing characters from different periods via magic, then the game also hits a gigantic "reset button" at the end so that everything just reverts back to normal. I'm highly expecting this to be the case, actually. In this case, would that make it potentially canon in that it may of happened but doesn't matter if it hadn't?
 * Also, I do want to just add that what bothers me right now is that it's treatment in infoboxes means it gets listed alongside "other games" like SSB, Soul Calibur, etc., when it should probably at least have billing alongside the other Zelda titles. What's the stance on that? 17:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a follow up again, but I find it a little perturbing that basically we have an official Zelda game with Nintendo and Aonuma's involvement, yet the "Queen Zelda" link redirects to a tiny portion at the bottom of a page that is primarily a dumping ground for CDi, Captain N and other western-only licensed appearances. Seems a bit off to me. I'm not asking for this game to necessarily be recognized as canon, but right now it's relegated to a lesser status than Link's Crossbow Training. That can't be right, surely? Kinda feel like I'm arguing into the wind here, though... 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Zelda Wiki's role is not to subjectively glorify things. The related Link page receives the same treatment, which I feel is perfectly fair. The media should be listed by order of release for both of those pages, regardless of Nintendo and Aonuma's involvement (which, I must state again, warrants no special treatment as far as I'm concerned. It just makes a great aesthetic).
 * Really, this "lesser status" just sounds like a false personification that you're imposing. It's a page listing information, cut and dried. Most of this conversation just seems to be you insulting the other works, since it largely feels like you deem them as abominations in relation to this game.
 * Queen Zelda should be made into a disambiguation page, not a redirect, as there have been multiple Queen Zeldas in the series and I'm sure you're aware that the "tiny portion" is going to increase and flourish with time. However, I don't feel that we need to give this special treatment. Though it seems "off" to you, it really doesn't seem like everybody shares that sentiment.
 * Also, to address your previous post, what you're arguing might as well be called "Schrödinger's plot-device," but the fault in that is that (as implied) just about any plot could happen so it's mere speculation. From the information we have, we can conclude that it is not designed to be canon. If that for some reason changes in the future, then it's very simple to rectify the information. However, as we are with the information that we have right now (disregarding speculation), things point to it being non-canon. 14:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's more than a little harsh Pakkun, I don't think I was out to "insult" other works (unless it's the CD-i games, I think you can cut me some slack there). I have Link's Crossbow Training and love it, actually. Got top scores and everything, and I'd sing the praises of the BS Zelda games til the moon falls down. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that non-canon information is now being removed from main pages entirely, even if it's something as significant as this game or Super Smash Bros.. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if it was the CD-i games.
 * I'm not sure why Nintendo and Aonuma's involvement is NOT a factor. How can it not be? There's a difference between a Zelda game published and co-developed by Nintendo and a knock-off low budget atrocity developed by Phillips to cash in on a license they obtained that is not even recognized by Nintendo as existing. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but if you can't see the difference then I really AM arguing into the wind here. Please try to understand my position before writing me off.
 * My position has actually changed a little, I do accept this is PROBABLY not canon, but perhaps my issue can be better described as not being happy with how non-canon information is displayed. I think Nintendo-produced and co-developed works should take precedence over other licensed material. Obviously I should probably take that to the Discussion Center instead rather than arguing that here.
 * Small note, but apparently there really is a "Schrödinger's plot-device" called the Gate of Souls. How it works is anyone's guess at the moment though. 20:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My apologies if I seemed harsh. However, I disagree that non-canon information is being removed from main pages. It's only in the case of significantly major characters in situations where it would greatly behoove us to shorten excessively long pages. In any other case, the information is presented on the main pages.
 * I am trying to understand where you're coming from, but I don't feel like it should be considered a factor. I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could find Nintendo staff involvement of varying levels in various related media. Even the Skyward Sword manga had correspondence from Aonuma, but that doesn't really merit anything since it's still and listed alongside other, non-main series media.
 * I welcome you to take it to the Discussion Center as you've said, though. I don't feel like it's necessary, but maybe a discussion with the newer focus would get us somewhere. 23:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Guys, in some pages the name "Hyrule Warriors" is placed under the "Non Canon Section", while in others it's placed under the "Ambigously Canon Section". It would be nice if those labeling could be fixed. Thanks :)--Isamisa (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agitha confirmed playable, Zant will be in game
Leak from the latest issue from Famitsu Magazine circulating states that Agitha is confirmed to be a playable character. It also shows off Argorok as well as Zant as enemies. Ixbran (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.famitsu.com/news/201406/24055797.html Seems the rumors were true. Agitha confirmed as a playable character, she fights using her Parasol and can summon swarms of insects. The mysterious blue haired girl is revealed to be named Lana, she fights with a spell book. Ixbran (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Link and Zelda will get Twilight Princess costume DLC
New TP costumes for Link and Queen Zelda for HW, here: https://31.media.tumblr.com/8c3a96193a7daadbe4261ec330be322c/tumblr_n7rlw0e0uE1teptdlo7_1280.jpg

https://31.media.tumblr.com/553dcc2e207a002c88e8d991db65a2d2/tumblr_n7rlw0e0uE1teptdlo6_1280.jpg

Here's Lana's profile with new images: http://www.gamecity.ne.jp/zelda/character_lana.html

and here's Agitha: http://www.gamecity.ne.jp/zelda/character_agitha.html

and Zant's and a new villain is also updated in the official page :)

That's all --Isamisa (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gallery Page
Would it be alright if we went ahead and made a Hyrule Warriors Gallery page? With all the images, artworks, and videos they have released on the game, it would be nice to make them their own page don't cha think? Ixbran (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, most of the images in the gallery are completely unnecessary, I don't see the point in having every single image released uploaded to the Wiki. Not even the official canon games have some many images in their galleries, let alone a gallery page just for them. Chuck (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what gallery pages are supposed to be for though; Images, renders, and videos? Ixbran (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)