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. User:Pakkun/sig 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. User:Pakkun/sig 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. User:Pakkun/sig 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. User:Pakkun/sig 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. User:Fizzle/sig 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.User:Justin/sig 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). --SnorlaxMonster 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. User:Fizzle/sig 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? User:Fizzle/sig 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. User:Fizzle/sig 19:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)