Talk:BS The Legend of Zelda: Ancient Stone Tablets

Canonicity
Why doesn't this page have a detailed layout and summary like the rest of the Zelda Titles? There are playable roms of each week, as well as summaries, walkthroughs, faqs,, lists, etc, detailing most, if not all, information on the game. I think it's an important game in the series, introducing the "fog of war" on the map later used in OoT, and real-time weather that affects gameplay.

Also, why is this game, along with Zelda for the G&W, considered to be of questionable canonicity? Both were published by Nintendo on established Nintendo systems, and neither contradicts any of the other games thus far. If you go be reasoning of publisher, developer, and system, they have more claim to canon than the Oracles series or Four Swords games. Not that I'm trying to start an argument. I'm just curious as to the reasoning of this decision.

Nook 19:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your first question, it's all a matter of research done. Pretty much everyone here knows next to nothing about this game, and the ROM I tried to snag didn't work (I need to search for a working copy). I could definitely get one and expand this article if you'd like, though. :P
 * As for your second question, it's all a matter of spin-off-ness. Think of it like the Tales series. They have two main "series" of games: "Mothership" titles, which are all of the main games in the series, and then the spin-off titles; granted, their spin-offs are still considered canon, but I'm stating that merely for the separation of games. This game fits into the spin-off category. Regardless, there are people who still try to fit it, Link's Crossbow Training, Tingle's Balloon Fight DS, etc., into timelines. And really, unless Nintendo says specifically that something is NOT canon (as they did with the CD-i games), we can't say for sure and there's always going to be debate on what is and isn't canon. The generally accepted non-canon games are:


 * 1) The CD-i games
 * 2) The Sattelaview games
 * 3) Tingle's Balloon Fight DS
 * 4) Link's Crossbow Training
 * 5) Game & Watch Zelda
 * 6) Zelda Watch Game
 * 7) In some cases, Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland (its canon status is disputed; it may be the one spin-off that is truly canon. I haven't played it so I couldn't say)
 * So that's pretty much that. I need to play these, though. :/ 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, here's my take on it. These games (Zelda for G&W and Ancient Stone Tablets) are more of the "Fun Games". Akin to Link in Soul Calibur II. Sure it is fun, but it isn't part of the story. The basic guideline is that the game had to have had involvement by Shigeru Miyamoto in development, which the Oracles and the Four Sword line did. In addition, they have to have been released in both Japan and North America, and recently in Europe as well. Not just in Japan. So games that do not fit in this category but had a license from Nintendo, are spin-offs, So they are in their own parallel world of sorts and are not in the main line's canon. 20:19, August 17, 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I did not know that Miyamoto wasn't involved in Ancient Stone Tablets. ANyway, I may make this game my next project after I finish with Four Swords... Nook 20:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't that. It is that Ancient Stone Tablets was never released outside of Japan. 20:54, August 17, 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. My misunderstanding ^_^;;

One potential flaw with that theory though, Matt, is that Miyamoto was involved with Link's Crossbow Training. That hardly seems canon to me, though. :/ 22:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The real key here is that Link's Crossbow Training was developed by Nintendo of America. Not by Nintendo of Japan. Also, the purpose of its creation was to demonstrate the use of the Zapper. So it is just a "for fun" game. Just as the Mario Party games are just "for fun" games. No real story ties. That's it. 22:31, August 17, 2008 (UTC)


 * By that reasoning though, that means that Metroid Prime Hunters shouldn't be considered canon because it was developed in the US by NST instead of in Japan by R&D4. Neither should any of the Prime games, for that matter, because they were developed by Retro in the US. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't judge the canonicity of a game by its developers.


 * Also, just being nitpicky now, but the Mario Party games do have a story. >_>


 * Anyway, not to interrupt you two but I didn't intend for this to evolve into a "Which Games Are Canon" thread, just a discussion on Ancient Stone Tablets and possibly Zelda.


 * Nook 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The developer thing is just about our standing on the Zelda series. The Mario Party games have a story within themselves but not with the rest of the Mario series. Ando, perhaps we can do something to provide a means of discussing things not related to improving a page. I'll look into it and report the best answer on the Hyrule Castle page. 22:55, August 17, 2008 (UTC)

The title
Is using a translated title really the best idea? Although I do doubt this would ever be localized, it just generally doesn't make sense to use a title that was never used by Nintendo themselves (even Nazo no Murasamejou technically has an official translation, although I still wouldn't use it). Good for a translation in the lead, obviously. ZeldaDoritos 09:49, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Personally I think this page should be under Inishie no Sekiban, as the translated title is open to discussion. However, one thing I am sure on, and that this page should not have a "The" in the title, its unnecessary and makes it even longer than it needs to be. Most Zelda games do not have "the" in the title, and it just makes it longer than it has to be. Fizzle 17:08, 7 November 2011 (EST)


 * Since we've opted to use "BS Zelda no Densetsu: Inishie no Sekiban," shouldn't we also use the literal transliteration, "Zeruda"? It looks odd to me to use "Zelda" and then switch over to Japanese part way through the sentence... 19:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)


 * "Zeruda" is basically the same thing as saying "Zelda", since the R is L and the U is silent. I don't agree that it should be spelled as "Zeruda" in the article. Besides, since when does western fans refer to "Zelda no Densetsu" as "Zeruda no Densetsu"? It's better to go with the more common spelling of Zelda. The Goron Moron 21:25, 2 January 2012 (EST)


 * Actually, it isn't the same thing. A native Japanese speaker would never say "Zelda no Densetsu" (and neither should any student of Japanese!). の伝説　(no Densetsu) is approximately translated "Legend of" (I say approximately because the particle の doesn't have a literal translation in English, though "of" is a perfectly acceptable translation. Just in case someone wanted to nitpick.) and the katakana for Zelda is ゼルダ, which is transliterated Zeruda (or, less frequently, Zeluda). I'm saying, are we going to have this title be Japanese or aren't we? Right now, it's romaji with an English word thrown in. I don't mind "The Legend of Zelda: Inishie no Sekiban" as much as what we have now, though I think it would be better to pick one or the other (that is, English or Japanese). 01:36, 3 January 2012 (EST)


 * We're English, we're not Japanese. This is an English wiki, not a Japanese one. Also, I am most certain that "Zelda" was copyrighted even in Japan, not Zeruda. See that's the thing, copyrights do not match pronunciation. If it were, then "Parukia" from Pokemon would be copyrighted. But no, it's copyrighted as "Palkia" in both Japan and America. I'm pretty sure this is the same deal here. Look, I perfectly understand that using "Inishie no Sekiban" is more ideal since "Ancient Stone Tablets" is just a fan-translation of a title. But I don't think the franchise title should matter this much. I vote for either Zelda no Densetsu or The Legend of Zelda to be used instead. The Goron Moron 01:48, 3 January 2012 (EST)


 * I'm not trying to make an issue out of copyrights, or what is the "proper title," or whatever, I'm talking about LANGUAGES here. This is equivalent of calling a page "The Densetsu of Zelda" or "Ocarina of Toki." We're mixing two languages in the title. This is the issue with which I am concerned. Let us choose just one language for this sentence. lol 01:55, 3 January 2012 (EST)


 * It hardly seems like language-mixing to me, since it is "Zelda" that's copyrighted and therefore the more correct title, but whatever. In that case, I vote for "The Legend of Zelda:" then. All of the other BS titles are being referred with that franchise title, and frankly, most people refer to titles by their sub-titles anyway. The Goron Moron 01:59, 3 January 2012 (EST)


 * I actually think we should just go with BS The Legend of Zelda: Inishie no Sekiban. That had already been suggested that rather than Zelda no Densetsu in Hyrule Castle, I think the wrong alternate was just picked by mistake, not a big deal. It'll be easier to organise if we just stick with BS The Legend of Zelda. And while accurate, Zelda no Densetsu is always translated as The Legend of Zelda, while Inishie no Sekiban is more open to interpretation (after all, the name Ancient Stone Tablets was even coined when people still thought the name was Kodai no Sekiban). I'll fix this. Fizzle 05:39, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Legacy section
The legacy section seems very trivial at best, I think the points mentioned it really should be condensed and put into the trivia section. =/ The Goron Moron 17:27, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * Other game pages have it, what's wrong with it? They're all things that went on to directly influence either Ocarina of Time (such as the concept of Zelda having prophetic dreams) or later games. Maybe one or two are more trivial than others, but in general most of them seemed fairly notable gameplay additions that were used again in later games. That's what a legacy section is about, right? Fizzle 08:30, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Hyrule Historia name
While I'm not too bothered by the idea of moving it, exactly how "canon" is the HH translation? I have noticed some minor discrepancies with the games and potentially some things being sourced from the wiki rather than being "official", per se. While indeed a fantastic translation, it is by Dark Horse, how much involvement did Nintendo actually have? Possibly not the best place to discuss this, but... I am genuinely curious if anyone knows. 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Relation to Super Smash Bros. and the timeline
Super Smash Bros. is universally considered not a part of the timeline, but what if it was? In Ancient Stone Tablets, it is said that Link was away for training. If Hyrule were in danger, Link surely would've went to help. He obviously was held back somehow.. If Link were in another dimension, fighting in the SSB tournement, he wouldn't have been able to go back home to even check if Hyrule was in danger, which is why I think both Ancient Stoe Tablets and SsB fit into the timeline, and are linked in this way. Super Smsher (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately Zelda Wiki is not the place to discuss personal theories. 17:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My point is that the 'ambiguously cano' tag should be discussed. The Super Smasher (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No amount of fan conjecture, speculation or "reasoning" can change its canonicity. The facts are that AST in ambiguously-canon and the series is non-canon.
 * If you would like to discuss the possibility that AST is congruent with the Smash series, please take it to Zelda Universe's forum. 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)