Why don't they get it?
probably because people have a hard time believing there's 219381983 different princesses with the same name.
Yeah, the early ones didn't think too hard on a series chronology, that's why the current story line was retconned up the ass.
But the thing I meant is something different. Sure, there is the idea that every game has another Link and another
Zelda since the stories don't fit if they belong to one and the same person. So, there has been speculation: Are the games different versions of the same story? Or are Link and
Zelda always reincarnations? Etc. But the issue with "
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link -
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link" is nothing to speculate about. It belongs right to the story: Link saved
Zelda and some years later he gets to know the story of the first
Zelda who was put to sleep, so he tries to awaken her. The manual leaves no doubt that, while it is of course the same Link, there is another
Zelda. (Of course, the regular
Zelda is still there, although she is not shown in the story.) But still the people don't get it, although this has nothing to do with the later idea of many Link and
Zelda incarnations, an idea that was not established in the NES times.
Actually it is the early games who present a consistent chronology without plot holes. "
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link" is a direct sequel of "
Zelda I", they even designed the map so that you can recognize the world of part 1 on it. Everything is logic here. But then the Super Nintendo version came up and changed everything: Suddenly Hyrule looks completely different, Ganon owns all three Triforces and still has not more
POWer than in "
Zelda I", there is a dark parralel world etc. And if "
Zelda II: The Adventure of LinkI" is a prequel to "
Zelda I", how could Ganon reappear in the first part if, according to "
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link" the blood of the one who killed him is needed. That's a general problem in the series: Ganon always comes back, although the original games claim that such a ritual is needed for it.
So, all in all the stories of the
NES Games are definitely consistent. There is nothing in the second part where you ask yourself: "How can this be? According to the first part that's unlogic." But the later games changed everything and screwed up the storyline.
(A similar phenomenon can be seen in "
Castlevania": Part 1 and 2 are consistent. Even the castle ruins look like the first level of "
Castlevania I". But in the third part suddenly the whole surroundings and the castle itself and even Dracula look completely different. And in every "
Castlevania" game the castle is there, although it crumbled in the previous part. The only exception is "
Castlevania II - Simon's Quest" where there are only the ruins which is absolutely logic.)
i've never really played
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link or read into the story line of it. but i understand what you're saying.
i still think people don't believe it's another Princess
Zelda because more than one princess with the same name for the same story/series is kinda weird.
for
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, maybe
Zelda's mothers name is
Zelda too? but then why would Link be the age that he is in both games?
This was explained in Symphony of the Night I believe, a game that took place after the third
Castlevania (CVIII took place before the first 2). Dracula's castle takes on different incarnations when he is at
POWer. So that can justify the ruins being in part 2 also, because he wasn't in
POWer. Something along those lines.
I usually don't like to speculate on games, but CV is one of my favorite series out there :P
At least in the
NES Games it has nothing to do with believing or not believing. It's a fact that it's another
Zelda and the story explains why.
Sorry, I don't really get what you want to say here. The story goes like this: Ganon is defeated, Princess
Zelda is saved and the Triforce of Wisdom and
POWer are there again. On his 16th birthday a mark appears on Link's hand and that mark can open a hidden door in the palace. There a girl lies sleeping. Her name is
Zelda. She was the princess centuries ago. Her brother wanted to know where the Triforce of Courage is hidden and she knew it, but she didn't tell him. So, a wizard who was "hired" by the prince cast a spell on
Zelda and she fell asleep. The wizard died then. Realizing what he has done, the prince put
Zelda into that room and commanded that every future female member of the royal family shall be called
Zelda, so that this tragedy is never forgotten. And now, back in the present, Link starts to find the Triforce of Courage and with all three Triforces he awakens this first Princess
Zelda. (For more details, just read the manual that you can download at NESFiles.com.)
So, that's the explanation why there are two
Zelda's: The regular
Zelda from part 1 (who isn't mentioned in the storyline of part 2 anymore, but who must be around there) and the first
Zelda who is asleep for centuries. But most people don't get it and still think that sleeping
Zelda is the same as the one who was captured by Ganon and that she was just put to sleep shortly before the game begins.
(Sleeping
Zelda is actually the grand aunt of regular
Zelda since the heir to the throne was that prince and regular
Zelda is one of his descendants.)
So, whenever Dracula arises, the castle comes up from the ground, completely rebuilt? Game developers think up strange things. If the people see that the castle reappears, why don't they immediately send a Belmont? Why does Dracula always have time to spread fear? So, they see: "Oh, the castle comes back." They should then say: "O.k., let's go fighting Dracula again" before he can do anything bad.
By the way, it's not only the castle, it's the whole surroundings: Transsylvania always looks different in the games, although it is always supposed to be the same place: The land around the castle. And that's not logic, is it?
you said it's a different Princess
Zelda, so i was thinking the other
Zelda could be
Zelda's mother with the same name? i don't really know how to explain it. i guess it was a dumb idea.
i'll stay out of this topic, i've never really read up on the storyline, or played
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link for more than 20 minutes.
like Roth said, i don't like to speculate games.
Listen, the Super Nintendo
Zelda IS "one of the early ones", and they didn't think too hard about chronology.