Gentle humans, avert your eyes from this grim spectacle: A trio of GameSpite Quarterly 7 articles dredged from the darkest realms known to our species. By which I mean three bios that all begin with the letters “d-a-r-k.” That spells “dark,” you know. And that is the nature of these characters. Also, it is their names.
- Dark Force: Sometimes called Dark Falz. Also sometimes called Dark Phallus, but man, I don’t even want to know about that. (Written by Jake Alley)
- Dark Link: Sometimes called Shadow Link. This guy was, like, a total butthead in Zelda II. (Written by Jeremy Signor)
- Dark Queen: I don’t think she has an alias. However, I would like to put forth the theory that her given name is Jennifer. (Written by some doofus)
Dark Force sounds interesting, in an amusing way. Did it make it into the Online games?
The Dark Link article is cool, and was always my favorite version of the battle. But this made me take notice of a pretty big flaw in the Zelda timeline:
If Link’s quest is to awaken the original Zelda, who was put to sleep for refusing to give up the location of the Triforce of Courage, and it isn’t until Link conquers Dark Link that it is retrieved, then there should not have been a complete Triforce in… well, any of the other Zeldas. Ocarina, Wind Waker, A Link to the Past…
But then, I suppose that’s pretty characteristic of the whole Zelda thing, isn’t it?
As for Dark Queen… so true. I still wish Rare would release the Battletoads arcade game on Xbox LIVE Arcade, though. That one at least seemed reasonable, if you can believe it.
LBD “Nytetrayn” you need to give up on trying to organize an over-arcing story between Zelda games. It just doesn’t matter.
If you don’t you’ll end up like the comic book guy I met once. He said to me “Hey have you read the new issue of that? It reintroduces Traci 13 into the continuity”
the phrase “reintroduces into the continuity” still haunts me. It’s indicative of the bloated mess of over-arcing story that DC comics has become.
Oh, it’s nothing I try to do. It simply occurred to me how the idea was practically damned at the outset.
PSO’s plot is actually exactly the same as PS3’s except with way less fact checking and cohesion, so yeah.
Well, different fact checking problems anyway. I suppose setting the game 1000 years after PS2 then having a series of events happening 1000 years ago that totally do not jive with ANYTHING about PS2 trumps “oh right we already used this exact plot except that time we used the right translation of the last boss’ name” really.
No Dark Sol or Dark Dragon?
:(
LBD – Dark Force was a proper final boss in PSO. “Proper” being projected and at the end of the game in a big normal evil place… but also summoned out of a bracelet.
Also, there is no Zelda timeline. Miyamoto’s said it numerous times. Give it up.
Tell that to the Zelda fanbase. Really. When I was in line for the Legend of Neil panel at Comic-con, there was this guy who wouldn’t stop with his Zelda timeline theories, even when the lights dimmed. Until of course, someone nearby told him to shut up. The person? Scott Chernoff, who played Ganon in the series (and is also a writer on Conan btw). Thanks Scott!
The first thing the Dark Queen reminded me of was when Seanbaby awarded her the best NES villain award or something.
Eesh, I get the feeling no one saw my jab at the very notion of a cohesive Zelda timeline when I noted how the bass-ackwards-ness of it all was pretty characteristic.
…and everyone telling me “give it up” like I have some infamous agenda I’ve been pushing everywhere. Sheesh.
Zelda does have a timeline (Miyamoto has said so numerous times, if you want to use that tactic), but it didn’t really start until A Link to the Past. The first two games pretty clearly share a self-contained continuity if you notice how fundamental things like Zelda II’s backstory don’t jive at all with the lore laid out in subsequent games.
Of course, there are always fans that try to relate every single game via wild conjecture, down to Link’s appearance in Soul Calibur II. THOSE are the crazy ones.