Which Zelda Game is the Most Philosophical?

[Random Person]

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but in my mind, philosophy needs to be new, or challenging or conflicting with other ideals. Zelda doesn't do that. The messages are simple, plain, and hardly debatable.

I'm glad you shared this because, as I constantly point out, knowing your definition when discussing is important.

There's a saying in the entertainment business.... I have no idea how it goes, but to paraphrase nothing is new in the entertainment business. Though the way people implement ideas make them seem original, really practically every idea has been done before. Of course, the main problem is that Zelda is not only not new, but simply cliche. This is where the definition seems to be varying. Your particular definition is kind of like art. Some people use the word "art" to mean good work.That is a real piece of art. whereas I describe anything created by a human with purpose as art. Thus, when I say philosophy, I mean anything with a meaning to life behind it, even if it is considered obvious to some, whereas according to your definition, you only find deep life meanings philosophical.

And now there is 5% less confusion in the world.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Philosophy attempts to answer questions concerning the fundamental issues surrounding our existence: Ethics, morals, reason, reality, knowledge, perception etc.

Something can be both derivative and philosophical. It simply might not be interesting.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I just don't understand this. Not only did MM (and LA for that matter) not spell it out for you....it completely chose not to acknowledge that at all. In fact, MM dodged it completely. To me, these aren't philosophical ideas the game had...these are plot holes turned into philosophical ideas by players with more imagination than the developers.

This is due to my own interpretation of a philosophy in-game: that which cause the player to give pause to his actions and consider the implications of his actions and how they affect the world around him, to act on those thoughts in-game, and to come away from it with a new way of thinking about things. These two games I've listed, Majora's Mask and Link's Awakening, have done that for me. While it was not spelled out to you, I was able to pick up on these two things while playing, and it caused me to stop and consider things from different perspectives and to act accordingly.

Honestly, that would have been awesome if Majora's Mask brought that question. Like maybe after the 2nd dungeon, Tatl would question their efforts when everything gets set back. And maybe, in the end, you would beat all the bosses again to free all 4 giants again before taking on Majora. But no. Instead, despite still be possessed by the masks, the giants are somehow immune to whole time travel thing. They are freed from the masks and yet the areas are still in peril. Why? Because the giant that is freed from the mask is still trapped in the mask and causing the problems.

Strictly plot-wise, yeah that's kinda a plot hole. Unless you subscribe to the theory of time traveler immunity, where the traveler and everything that travels with him are protected from any paradoxes that might happen. Also, that would be really freaking annoying if we were forced to beat each of the bosses before calling the giants and stopping the moon. From a gameplay perspective that would be redundant, and it might have deterred some players from ever finishing the game (something I think we can all agree would be a very bad thing).

I think the reason Tatl doesn't bring up the fact that your actions don't really matter is because she's focused on getting back to her brother. It does make for a simplistic way of looking at things, but it's consistent with her character. Besides, even if she doesn't we as players do. We start to wonder if it's even worth it to save that old lady from getting robbed because it's just going to keep happening. Whether it's even worth it to bring Kafei and Anju back together because it takes up the majority of your 3-day time limit and it's just going to be reset in the end. Whether it's even worth it to take on Goht and stop the winter because they're going to die and come back anyways. And even whether it's even worth it to stop the moon from falling because it's inevitable. Unless you have the strength of heart to push forward, free the giants, and stop it.

If that wasn't a huge enough plot hole, Nintendo dug themselves deeper in the end. The characters live a happy ending in each of their personal lives as a result of Link helping them...even though...Link didn't help them...because he went back in time. The Gorons should be dead. The Deku princess should be missing. Anju and Kafei's relationship should be over. The cuccos should still be small. The twins shouldn't have the new dance. The list goes on. What could have been interesting and though provoking story content is, instead, a plot hole. A huge one at that.

I am going to have to agree with you on this aspect, strictly plot-wise. What would have been better is if the ending only takes into account what you did during that 3-day cycle immediately before you beat the game. If you killed Goht and brought an end to the winter, then it shows the mountain in springtime. If not, it's a frozen wasteland and the Gorons are all frozen over. If you didn't kill Twinmold, Pamela's house would have been wrecked and invaded by the Gibdos, and they would have been killed. If you didn't go through the efforts of reuniting Anju and Kafei, there should be no wedding.

However, from a gameplay perspective that would have been inconsistent. If you went through the troubles of going through all the sidequests, then the ending should be a reflection of what the player accomplished. Since you did in fact save the four lands in previous time cycles, the game should show you what happens as a result of that (even though on reflection it doesn't really make much sense chronologically speaking).

Also, I'm still going to argue that the sidequests are thought-provoking, plot holes be damned. It still managed to cause me (and a number of other players as well) to think about my actions and the futility of it all.

L.A.'s is a minor plot hole but a huge disappointment in story. There was no regret. Link just awoke the Wind Fish and everyone died. Link didn't care. The windfish didn't care. This could have been a huge part of the story. Link having to struggle with the ominous warnings, perhaps confronting the owl and abandoning his destiny or Marin finding out and being a part of the big picture. But no. Link is told several times that everyone will die if he wakes the windfish. All Link has to do to keep an entire island alive is to simply...give up and stay on the island...which, when you think about it, is better than being lost at sea, doomed to be killed. But no. He keeps going, doesn't hesitate for a second, doesn't confide in anyone in this or even bring it up. And when all is said and done, he doesn't care that any of this happened. Who won in this? Everyone dies in an apocalypse and Link dies a slow painful death due to starvation and dehydration.

Again, I'm going to have to refer to my definition of an in-game philosophy, in that it requires to think about the implications of his actions and to act on these thoughts. These things you're mentioning, the struggle between giving up & living with Marin and awakening from this illusion of an island & erasing everybody else from existence in the process, are intentional. The game makers wanted you to think that while playing. Is it better to give up your ambitions for the good of others, even if they are not real? Or is it better to cast aside illusions and face the reality of things, even if it causes things which you hold dear to fade away? Take the red pill or the blue pill?

You're arguing that it would have been better had Link simply given up. That's good and all, but what about him? He knows it's all fake and is reminded of it constantly. The islanders have no grasp of the concepts of time, place, of the existence of other lands besides their own, etc.; very fundamental aspects of reality that Link cannot help but pick up on. He would never be able to rid himself of these nagging thoughts because that is reality, and Koholint is not reality. Those people aren't really there, it's all an illusion caused by the Wind Fish, and all Link has to do is awaken him to get back to reality, to the things which truly are real; Zelda, Hyrule, etc. It's the classic struggle of the perfect illusion vs. cold hard reality: which would you rather prefer? In the end, though, Link chose to carry on through and strive to get back to reality instead of buying into the illusion, which I would argue takes a strong and heroic will to carry out.

 

[DarkestLink]

Strictly plot-wise, yeah that's kinda a plot hole. Unless you subscribe to the theory of time traveler immunity, where the traveler and everything that travels with him are protected from any paradoxes that might happen.

That in itself is a plothole seeing how only some of the items Link has are immune...but regardless, this still brings two problems. 1) The giants did not travel back with Link. 2) The giants were imprisoned by the mask and, when Link has reversed time, they are still imprisoned...and yet free to aid him against the skull kid.

Also, that would be really freaking annoying if we were forced to beat each of the bosses before calling the giants and stopping the moon. From a gameplay perspective that would be redundant, and it might have deterred some players from ever finishing the game (something I think we can all agree would be a very bad thing).

...How? Wind Waker did the exact same thing with the addition of 4 rooms the player had to clear. You can teleport to the MM bosses, not to mention how easy they are in general.

I think the reason Tatl doesn't bring up the fact that your actions don't really matter is because she's focused on getting back to her brother.

That was a "they should have done this" idea I had. But no, the real reason she didn't bring it up is because that's simply not true in this game. Nintendo went out of their way to defy logic and give everyone a happy ending under the circumstance that you helped these characters...despite never helping them.

Besides, even if she doesn't we as players do. We start to wonder if it's even worth it to save that old lady from getting robbed because it's just going to keep happening.

Until we reach the end, then a fair few of us go "Oh...they...live happily ever after anyway. Wait wtf?"

Whether it's even worth it to take on Goht and stop the winter because they're going to die and come back anyways.

Actually at this point, we knew the giants were freed regardless of going back in time.

However, from a gameplay perspective that would have been inconsistent. If you went through the troubles of going through all the sidequests, then the ending should be a reflection of what the player accomplished. Since you did in fact save the four lands in previous time cycles, the game should show you what happens as a result of that (even though on reflection it doesn't really make much sense chronologically speaking).

Gameplay perspective? What does the story have to do with gameplay?

Also, I'm still going to argue that the sidequests are thought-provoking, plot holes be damned. It still managed to cause me (and a number of other players as well) to think about my actions and the futility of it all.

For the first dungeon...yeah...but for the rest of the game? All I could do was question why everything was working out so smoothly. Why is the giant freed? If the giant is freed, then why is the swamp still poisoned? It felt like Nintendo just couldn't make up their mind on which direction to go and compromised with a plot hole.

Again, I'm going to have to refer to my definition of an in-game philosophy, in that it requires to think about the implications of his actions and to act on these thoughts. These things you're mentioning, the struggle between giving up & living with Marin and awakening from this illusion of an island & erasing everybody else from existence in the process, are intentional.

It's nonexistant. There is no struggle.

The game makers wanted you to think that while playing. Is it better to give up your ambitions for the good of others, even if they are not real? Or is it better to cast aside illusions and face the reality of things, even if it causes things which you hold dear to fade away? Take the red pill or the blue pill?

...No. Sorry, but that's not believable. Zelda is not a subtle series in any aspect. Especially story. If the developers want you to think it, they would have brought it clearly to the table. Someone...ANYONE...would have brought up the issues of this. But nobody did. There was no resentment or care shown by Link or anybody else. In the end, I was left with the impression that Link simply didn't care for any of these people. Probably because they were a dream. In addition, I was left with the impression that I wasn't supposed to care either. In the end, this felt like nothing more than a giant dungeon that Link simply wanted to finish.

You're arguing that it would have been better had Link simply given up.

Or at least considered it...heck...even if I had a character (like the owl) give me one sentence explaining why it was better for Link to do this. Sorta like Midna in TP reminded Link that if he didn't get that last fused shadow (which he had been warned was dangerous), then the tragedy would repeat itself. Now if the owl perhaps could sense Links sadness (because, again, as far as I could tell, he didn't care) and say that while the island would disappear when the windfish awoke, that something worse would happen if the nightmares roamed free. I don't know, it could be something like the island would be turned corrupt and evil or else the nightmares would take over and make their lives a living hell...then yeah, I'd feel much more invested in this.

The islanders have no grasp of the concepts of time, place, of the existence of other lands besides their own, etc.; very fundamental aspects of reality that Link cannot help but pick up on.

Really? I did not see that.

He would never be able to rid himself of these nagging thoughts because that is reality, and Koholint is not reality.

Sounds like something you made up rather than saw in the story. I guess my memory is failing me again. And if it was truly fake, how did Marin make it to the real world?

 

[Sir Quaffler]

That in itself is a plothole seeing how only some of the items Link has are immune...but regardless, this still brings two problems. 1) The giants did not travel back with Link. 2) The giants were imprisoned by the mask and, when Link has reversed time, they are still imprisoned...and yet free to aid him against the skull kid.

I always thought it was something along the lines of: the giants were traveling with Link with the masks, and they can come out when Link calls them with the Oath to Order. Yeah it doesn't really make a lot of sense, but that's the best I've got.

...How? Wind Waker did the exact same thing with the addition of 4 rooms the player had to clear. You can teleport to the MM bosses, not to mention how easy they are in general.

Yeah I know Wind Waker did that, and I found it annoying then too. Easy, but still annoying. It's just proof of why I'm glad MM didn't FORCE us to do it right before stopping the moon.

That was a "they should have done this" idea I had. But no, the real reason she didn't bring it up is because that's simply not true in this game. Nintendo went out of their way to defy logic and give everyone a happy ending under the circumstance that you helped these characters...despite never helping them.

Until we reach the end, then a fair few of us go "Oh...they...live happily ever after anyway. Wait wtf?"

Like I said, I think they screwed up the ending too. But the theme of the futility of our actions is still present in the game itself, for those of us willing to look a little deeper under the surface.

Gameplay perspective? What does the story have to do with gameplay?

In a videogame, everything. Gameplay and story are not two separate aspects but instead work together to create a cohesive work of art.

For the first dungeon...yeah...but for the rest of the game? All I could do was question why everything was working out so smoothly. Why is the giant freed? If the giant is freed, then why is the swamp still poisoned? It felt like Nintendo just couldn't make up their mind on which direction to go and compromised with a plot hole.

Due to the way I'm defining gameplay philosophy it requires player input and thought, and if what you're thinking about the entire time is the chronological inconsistency then that's all you're gonna get out of it. And as far as this plot hole, I think it's that they wanted you to be able to replay those parts of the game again, going back through the poisoned swamp and frozen mountain and whatnot. They did in fact have a goal in mind, give them a little more credit than what you are.

It's nonexistant. There is no struggle.

It's there if you look for it.

...No. Sorry, but that's not believable. Zelda is not a subtle series in any aspect. Especially story. If the developers want you to think it, they would have brought it clearly to the table. Someone...ANYONE...would have brought up the issues of this. But nobody did. There was no resentment or care shown by Link or anybody else. In the end, I was left with the impression that Link simply didn't care for any of these people. Probably because they were a dream. In addition, I was left with the impression that I wasn't supposed to care either. In the end, this felt like nothing more than a giant dungeon that Link simply wanted to finish.

There it is again, your take on the events does in fact take a part in how the story plays out to you. The philosophies of the game relies on how the player themselves think, and if you go in with a cynical mind that's going to color the events that unfold. Also you seem to be not giving the creators themselves any sort of credit where it's due. These guys have been in the videogame industry for close to 30 years, do you seriously think they are unable to convey themes and philosophies without shoving them in your face? So in that regard I fundamentally disagree with your statement that Zelda games are not subtle.

Or at least considered it...heck...even if I had a character (like the owl) give me one sentence explaining why it was better for Link to do this. Sorta like Midna in TP reminded Link that if he didn't get that last fused shadow (which he had been warned was dangerous), then the tragedy would repeat itself. Now if the owl perhaps could sense Links sadness (because, again, as far as I could tell, he didn't care) and say that while the island would disappear when the windfish awoke, that something worse would happen if the nightmares roamed free. I don't know, it could be something like the island would be turned corrupt and evil or else the nightmares would take over and make their lives a living hell...then yeah, I'd feel much more invested in this.

The terrible thing was that Link would be trapped on this island of illusions for the rest of his life. No nightmarish takeover, no corruption, the fact that he's stuck on the dream island is itself the conflict. Again, it's not spelled out to you, it requires introspection on the part of the player to deduce that this place is not where Link should be. It's not his home, and due to the nature of the residents he will never belong there. Forever an outsider. But if those thoughts never cross your mind, then there's really nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. Due to my in-game philosophy requiring input and independent thought from the player, if you don't pick up on this stuff or come into the game with a cynical mindset then, again, that's going to color the philosophy of the game. You see nothing more than an obstacle course that Link needs to get through to get off of the island and the inhabitants he doesn't care about, and I can't change that.

Really? I did not see that.

Talk to the kids in Mabe Village; at some point (I don't remember exactly when, sorry) they say something to the effect of: "Time? What is time? I'm not familiar with this concept." and "What is 'where'?" And Marin's dad Tarin cannot grasp the concept of there being other islands beyond the horizon. This is but a taste of the complete cluelessness to reality the islanders have.

Sounds like something you made up rather than saw in the story. I guess my memory is failing me again. And if it was truly fake, how did Marin make it to the real world?

Not exactly made up, but rather extrapolated from what knowledge of the islanders I gathered from the game itself. I used logical reasoning to deduce that since the islanders have a demonstrated lack of knowledge for how things in the real world work, this would be in constant conflict with Link's knowledge of the real world.

As to that last question... well now we fans have been speculating that one since the game was released. Perhaps it was because the Wind Fish saw fit to grant her wish of becoming a seagull so she could fly to the many lands of the world. Maybe it's just magic? But in any case, we can know without a doubt that the island is truly fake because the game said so. If the canon states that Koholint is a dream, then that is a set-in-stone, inarguable fact of the game, and it is useless to question the validity of that statement.

 

[DarkestLink]

I always thought it was something along the lines of: the giants were traveling with Link with the masks, and they can come out when Link calls them with the Oath to Order. Yeah it doesn't really make a lot of sense, but that's the best I've got.

...I'm not sure if I read what you said correctly, but regardless, I just realized another issue. Link has those masks. So the giant is imprisoned...with the mask...that....Link has...but...they are also free....and...imprisoned by a mask that is in Link's possession...but also in the temple....

Yeah I know Wind Waker did that, and I found it annoying then too. Easy, but still annoying. It's just proof of why I'm glad MM didn't FORCE us to do it right before stopping the moon.

Maybe I just don't see it. Killing those bosses takes 10 minutes at most...and...eeeehhh...it's just hard to believe someone would turn their noses up on this after doing the Anju/Kafei sidequest.

Like I said, I think they screwed up the ending too. But the theme of the futility of our actions is still present in the game itself, for those of us willing to look a little deeper under the surface.

This is Zelda...there is nothing deeper beneath the surface. And even if Zelda was like, say, Okami and the type to hold things beneath the surface...even then they wouldn't bury something like this if it was meant to be part of the story. There is no indication we were meant to come to this conclusion on the story's own merits.

In a videogame, everything. Gameplay and story are not two separate aspects but instead work together to create a cohesive work of art.

...Tell that to Miyamoto sometime.

Due to the way I'm defining gameplay philosophy it requires player input and thought, and if what you're thinking about the entire time is the chronological inconsistency then that's all you're gonna get out of it. And as far as this plot hole, I think it's that they wanted you to be able to replay those parts of the game again, going back through the poisoned swamp and frozen mountain and whatnot. They did in fact have a goal in mind, give them a little more credit than what you are.

Well you're entitled to your opinion...but I just don't see how player input can work with the game's actual story. In the end, with "input", I can make up any symbolism or deep story struggle I can for any game. I could grab the original Super Mario Brothers and go into a heated debate, claiming that Mario was meant to represent Jesus Christ and that Bowser was meant to represent Satan and that the whole game was an allegory towards the bible.

And I think you're giving far too much credit to a company that has said and shown time and time again that they really couldn't give a darn for the story.

It's there if you look for it.

Well let's save me 15 fruitless playthroughs of fruitless searching and you tell me where it is.

There it is again, your take on the events does in fact take a part in how the story plays out to you. The philosophies of the game relies on how the player themselves think, and if you go in with a cynical mind that's going to color the events that unfold.

The players view on the story has no impact on the story itself. At this point we're nearing the realms of fanfiction.

Also you seem to be not giving the creators themselves any sort of credit where it's due.

1) Again, they've made it clear they don't care for story.

2) I'm not crediting someone for having such low story content that the player had to go and make it up himself. Zelda isn't an RPG, Nintendo just couldn't be bothered to fill the whole story.

These guys have been in the videogame industry for close to 30 years, do you seriously think they are unable to convey themes and philosophies without shoving them in your face?

YES!!! *cough*...Sorry...

But seriously, this isn't Stephen King or Shakespeare. This is Nintendo. They don't specialize in story. They don't care for story. They constantly and openly belittle and downplay story.

The terrible thing was that Link would be trapped on this island of illusions for the rest of his life. No nightmarish takeover, no corruption, the fact that he's stuck on the dream island is itself the conflict.

Here's the thing though...nothing in the story hinted this was a problem. I sure didn't seem the problem. Other than the fact Link was putting his life in danger going through dungeon to dungeon, things seemed fine on the island. If they story had regarded the island as "important" and the people as "important" or "life" or something, then we'd be on to something. But in the end, we get happy music playing as each and every one of them is gone. And Link doesn't care. The windfish doesn't care. The owl doesn't care. They don't show the subtlest trace of caring. In fact, the villains seem to care more about this than Link. But nothing is there to give us the feeling that this may be more than a dream, that these people actually matter. The game ends with them being less important than common rocks.

Due to my in-game philosophy requiring input and independent thought from the player, if you don't pick up on this stuff or come into the game with a cynical mindset then, again, that's going to color the philosophy of the game. You see nothing more than an obstacle course that Link needs to get through to get off of the island and the inhabitants he doesn't care about, and I can't change that.

So in the end, we both just made up a completely different version of the story to fit this game. That's the problem I have with this. It doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel like Nintendo is making a story for us to follow. It feels like we decided to make up a fanfiction together, but are having trouble which direction we wanna take it.

Perhaps it was because the Wind Fish saw fit to grant her wish of becoming a seagull so she could fly to the many lands of the world.

But she's not real. What would he turn into a seagull?

But in any case, we can know without a doubt that the island is truly fake because the game said so. If the canon states that Koholint is a dream, then that is a set-in-stone, inarguable fact of the game, and it is useless to question the validity of that statement.

But how fake? If they are so fake, why should Marin be considered by the windfish? If there is any reality in them at all, why should Link selfishly sacrifice them all for the sake of him leaving? Regardless, the game addressed neither question.

 

[Hylian_Monolith]

Twilight Princess easily. I'm surprised that people are saying the games are not philosophical but then again, I'm also not surprised. Looking on the surface, the stories of Zelda aren't as deep as most of the cinematic games out right now so naturally people would say there's no lesson to learn or interesting thing to interpret. The stories can seem very cliche at times. But looking under the surface (which I do with EVERYTHING IN MY LIFE) the stories, particularly TP, can have very deep lessons to show or very deep meanings behind their stories. Back in the days I wrote an article about the symbolism of light, twilight and darkness in TP. It's not too for myself difficult to find more.

I do that too. I found similar messages within TP. Dang it, youpretty much summarized my essay. I see no need to post anything further now that you've stated it.
(Inside: YES! I'm not alone in looking at things too deeply!)