December 9, 2018 Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is here!

Interested in helping out? Come join us as we Smash our way through!
Want to contribute for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate outside of The Legend of Zelda? SmashWiki could use some love!

Latest Announcements

Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction Video

I noticed that the The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons page has a video of the introduction and title screen of the game. Should we do this for The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages too? I would do it, but I'm not quite sure how to add the video and format it correctly to the page. I did find a good video to use, however. --Bigrageous 19:58, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Anyone remember this?

A long time ago had some sort of trivia quiz where getting 100% on all the questions would make you a "Sage of Wisdom." I mention this because in the "study guide" included with it they said Oracle of Ages was listed as the 7th game, and Seasons 8th. Since they were released at the SAME TIME (literally the same day), does anyone think this suggests an "official" order? I ASK because I know's info can be dubious. --KingStarscream 23:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)'s resources are unreliable outside of the game pages, but can you still link to it? Anyway, I doubt there is an official order. Ages comes before Seasons alphabetically, so that might have been their reasoning. — Abdul [T] [C] [S]  08:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Stable Time Loop

Just to clarify why I removed that section -- it's nonsense that gets basic facts wrong about thermodynamics, relativity, and time travel.

  1. They're not giving him the "same" Bomb Flower (at least from their point of view), they're giving him one cultivated from the original, which by a freak but very possible chance (especially when Time MAGIC is involved), has the same atomic make-up. The whole "staleness" analogy is nonsensical.
  2. Closed time-like curves are exactly how real scientists plan to use computers that can operate faster than light. To claim that such a thing is a necessary paradox, or is impossible, is very, very ignorant of the actual state of the field.
  3. "Entropy always increases even if the object is going back in time" is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. That's not what the law says at all, and here's an article where they very clearly explain why the direction of time is important to entropy. If any object always underwent entropy even if it was traveling "backward", then tachyons would screw the system all to hell.
The other examples there are definitely not scientifically accurate, so I won't remove them as blatantly false, but I do think they should be removed as being a misunderstanding of what's going on in the scene. While the game overall is inconsistent in how it uses time travel (as is the series), those specific instances are clearly using the Back to the Future model -- someone goes back and changes the events, the consequences propagate at light speed throughout their light cone, then someone else with a time machine, unhappy with their current status, also goes back. The main confusion seems to be that certain characters are able to "remember" the previous timelines -- while this is obviously not physically realistic, you could easily argue that those characters are "Blessed by Nayru" or have special souls or something. After all, you'd be a poor wielder of the Harp of Ages if you couldn't tell if you had actually made a difference.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool! I like your explanations, I accept your corrections without any complaints. I thought I knew my stuff about physics, but I'm happy to learn that there is still something new for me to learn (and I'm happy to see I'm different from Sheldon). --Abacos (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's forget about physics: applying science to magic is a bad idea. Let me stick to logic alone, without science.

(1) On the same single year, month, day and hour, three things happened:

  1. The Maku Tree was not killed, because Veran and Link did not come from the future.
  2. The Maku Tree was killed, because Veran only came from the future.
  3. The Maku Tree was not killed, because both Veran and Link came from the future.

The game wants us to believe that all these three facts happened exactly at the same time (I repeat: same year, month, day and hour), and this is nonsense: only one fact can happen at a given time. In particular, the player sees clearly that the third fact is the only one that happened, and thus the first two did not. Subsequently, the temporary disappearance of the Maku Tree centuries later is a plot flaw, that contradicts what actually happened (i.e. fact n.3). And even if fact n.2 was true, the Maku Tree would have disappeared straight away, not 400 years later.

(2) Second example, same logic: Symmetry City. On another single specific year, month, day and hour, two things happened:

  1. Simmetry City was destroyed, because Link did not come from the future;
  2. Simmetry City was not destroyed, because Link came from the future.

Once again, the game wants us to believe that one fact did and did not happen at the same identical time, and this is illogic. The game later shows that fact n.2 is the only one that happens. Subsequently, the fall in ruins of Symmetry City is a plot flaw, because it contradicts what actually happened.

(3) Third example, different logic: the Bomb Flower. The game shows that the bomb flower is part of an infinite loop. The problem, in my opinion, is that this loop never started. If it never started, then it can never be. But, thinking again, I admit that perpetual motion is acceptable in fiction (e.g. see Ultima VI-VII museum). --Abacos (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Sorry for the edit, I have a pet-hate: hyphenations. Sometimes I cannot resist :P --Abacos (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PPS: Actually, it's OK to correct other people's typos on other wikis I contribute to. I even got thanked for that. And hyphenations are a typo in 4 out of 5 languages that I know. My apologies for the slight. --Abacos (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not what the game wants us to believe. In those instances, the timeline was changed because someone with a time machine in the present wasn't happy with the status of the modern era, and went back to change it. The only inconsistency that could be present is in situations where the modern character is aware that the timeline has "just" been altered, and as that only happens with deified characters like Nayru, the Maku Tree, and Link, there's a very strong indication that they have some magical immunity to their memories being rewritten. That part is purely fictional, yes, but a reasonably acceptable fictional "out" is strongly implied by the presentation.
As far as (3), there is nothing at all impossible about that. Closed time-like curves, resulting in stuff like the bootstrap paradox, are completely possible with the current laws of physics. They are fundamentally unpredictable, as they're causality is due to an event that only happens due to their own ripples in time, but they're consistent.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that something changed implies that it was one way before and a another way later. Let's consider the attempt to kill the Maku Tree. Imagine a calendar and clock next to the Maku Tree in the three situations: did the three events happened at different dates and times? No: they happened at the same time and place. You are led to believe that the situation n.1 happened first, then it was changed to n.2, then to n.3. But n.1 did not happen before n.2 and n.3, n.2 did not happen between n.1 and n.3, and n.3 did not happen after n.1 and n.2: they all happened exactly at the same time. I underlined the temporal prepositions to zoom on the core of our different opinions. You think that the three facts happened one after the other (i.e. at different times); I say that they happened at the same time. The game shows that the Maku Tree was and was not killed at the same time and location! And this is illogic. --Abacos (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: I cannot fix other people's typos, but I saw a new one, and it is very common nowadays. Let me say it to the benefit of all writers. The verb "to be" (you're, he's, it's, they're) is pronounced the same as possessive adjectives (your, his, its, their), but their meaning is totally different. Magic unique to the English language! --Abacos (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Time changes, following a different timeline, the instant a time traveler arrives in the past -- there's no avoiding making "big changes", because simply reflecting photons is a big enough change in the eyes of the universe, unless you were there to do it "the first time" (a stable time loop). The very instant Link arrived in the past to prevent the Maku Tree from dying, he was following a separate timeline from the universes in which the Maku Tree died, even though he was originally from one of those universes. Information is transmitted at the speed of light, so the whole idea that time doesn't change "until something big happens" is nonsense--the very instant you go back in time, you are either going to enact a closed time-like curve, resulting in the same universe you were in originally, or you're going to change something, creating a split timeline. But as soon as there's changes in the universe, whether it be a single photon out of place, you're in a separate universe. That's not only the Many Worlds interpretation that is a popular model for quantum mechanics, but it's also specifically what the canon states is how time works.
There's not contradictory events happening at the "same time and place" because as soon as a time traveler went back with the ability to change time, they arrived in a new universe. So:
  1. First universe: Veran does not exist in the past. Maku Tree exists. Veran leaves the timeline to travel to the past.
  2. Second universe: Veran arrives in the past, resulting in a separate timeline and universe. Veran's forces kill the Maku Tree. Link (a character chosen by the gods who created the flow of time) is somehow able to retain memories of the first universe, even though he never actually existed in it. Link goes back in time.
  3. Third universe: Link arrives in the past, resulting in a separate timeline and universe. Link prevents Veran from killing the Maku Tree. We are not told whether Veran remembers the universe in which she succeeded.
You're trying to picture it as a single timeline with the changes overlaid, when it's a separate timeline each time. --- KrytenKoro, 19 November 2015‎

If there are three separate timelines, it means that Link just leaves behind the timelines where he's a loser, and goes where he's a winner. That's not a hero, that's a coward.
Also, how come facts from the second universe affect the future in a different universe? I mean: the Maku Tree disappears centuries after Veran killed it in a different universe? That's a plot flaw within the game. Think about this:

  1. First universe: Veran did not exist in the past. Maku Tree exists. Veran leaves the timeline and travels to universe n.2. The Maku Tree disappears although Veran did not exist in the past.

Although you use extra assumptions (parallel universes, awareness of facts in parallel universes) that are not in the game, this more complicated theory doesn't remove the plot flaw. "Ockham's razor": among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. I still support the fact that there are plot flaws in Oracle of Ages. Nevertheless, I appreciate this discussion and the game, too. ---Abacos (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)