Vaati; The True Villain of Hyrule?

[Zemen]

I haven't played this game for a while, and unfortunately I have never had the opurtunity to play MC, but isn't Vaati used as Ganon's puppet or someting in FSA?
THus making Ganondorf the main villian.

He is used by Ganondorf in FSA, but in MC Vaati is the main, standalone villain.

 

[Vash03]

There is not a single game where Ganon/dorf acquires the entire Triforce and get his darkest wishes realized.

Umm, he does in ALttP. And then Link gets it right afterward.. That was before OoT came in and split the three pieces of something that started out as a whole triangle of many peices, amongst three characters that the series revolves around. Try this people... What if Zelda wasn't a straight through time line... what if the are in fact Legends and there are many of them, and how are things like Legends spread? Word of mouth.. So yes there are a few games split up into a series.. for instance LoZ and AoL, ALttP is almost stand alone if you want to really get into it, and then there is OoT and MM, and also WW is supposedly a direct sequel to OoT leaving MM as either a side quest or not even part of the story (hence word of mout) and PH and Twilight Princess... there is then OoX which they and LA can be alone, then FS and FSA and MC can have there on thing.. so while currently gannon is in more games.. he just happens to be in more legends that were broken up into more than one game and told wrong to begin with in a sense (if you go along with the word of mouth theory). While Vaati is in less but has his own little series. Then again this is all just a theory I just made up. So in reality it's all really what you imagine which is what Miyamoto is really going for anyway.. He wants you to be molded by these games and get something out of it. So it's up to anyone who ever plays Zelda to actually make the decision.


Somewhat like this though:


1st Series Ganon

Ledgends of Zelda - NES - 1986

Zelda 2: Adventures of Link - NES - 1987

Ledgends of Zelda: A Link to the Past - SNES/GBA - 1991


2nd series Ganon

Ledgends of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - N64 - Ocarina of Time

Ledgends of Zelda: Majoras Mask - N64 - 2000

Ledgends of Zelda: Wind Waker - NGC - 2002

Ledgends of Zelda: Phantom Hour Glass - DS - 2007 (NO GANON IT'S JUST CANON WITH THE STORY LINE)

Ledgends of Zelda: Twilight Princess - NGC/Wii - 2006


1st series Vaati

Ledgends of Zelda: Four Swords - GBA - 2002

Ledgends of Zelda: Four swords Adventures - GCN - 2004

Ledgends of Zelda: Minish Cap - GBA - 2004


Stand Alones:

Ledgends of Zelda: Links Awakening - GB - 1993

Ledgends of Zelda: Oracles of Seasons/Ages - GB - 2001

 

[Master Kokiri 9]

This thread is only for those of you who believe that Minish Cap is the first game in the timeline. If you do not believe it is the first game in the timeline then just humor me and stick to the topic of the thread.

So, assuming that MC is the first game in the timeline, does this mean that Vaati is the true archenemy of Link? Yes, Ganon/dorf has fought him more times, he appeared in games first and he is much stronger, but if MC is first then he was not the first villain.

What if Vaati is the true villain of the series. If this is the case, do you think we will see more of Vaati and less of Ganon/dorf?

Vaati does follow the same pattern as Ganon/dorf. He wants power. He gains power. He uses that power to try and get more power. It seems like he has achieved his ultimate power. Kid wearing green destroys/captures him.

He has basically done just as much as Ganon/dorf and if MC is first then he is the first true villain to Hyrule.

So what do you guys think? Is Vaati the true Hyrule villain or is it Ganon/dorf. Keep in mind I'm not asking who is first. This is not a timeline debate. I'm asking who you think the true Hyrule villain is.

Well while i do think that oot comes before mc i do agree with you that vatti is the main villian of hyrule. in fact i would love to see more of vatti and less of old gannypoo.

 

[fiercedeity619]

I do not believe That Vaati is the true villian of hyrule. Here is why:
Vaati gains his power by putting on the magical cap. This cap he recieves through theft, he is not mean to have this cap. It is forged as a gift to the humans. Ganondorf on the other hand, is given the Triforce of power through fate. He is destined to be what he becomes. In my opinion, destiny is more solid than chance, and it was chance that Vaati got hold of that cap.

Also, Vaati only ever manages to absorb some of, not all of the 'light force.' Whereas Ganondorf gets the whole Triforce of Power. As there is alot of speculation that the Triforce and the light force are one and the same, this means, that even at his most powerful, Vaati would never be as powerful as Ganondorf.

One final point is that Ganondorf specifically can only be killed by whoever posseses the master sword, and therefore by extension. Link. Whereas, Vaati could be destroyed by anyone, it is just pure coincidence that it is Link who assembles the 'Four Sword.'

i have one problem with this: ganon/dorf wasn't chosen to have the ToP he steals it

 

[Zemen]

Vaati gains his power by putting on the magical cap. This cap he recieves through theft, he is not mean to have this cap. It is forged as a gift to the humans. Ganondorf on the other hand, is given the Triforce of power through fate. He is destined to be what he becomes. In my opinion, destiny is more solid than chance, and it was chance that Vaati got hold of that cap.

First of all, there are plenty of people who don't believe that Ganondorf is chosen to control the ToP. However, let's say he is. If he is chosen by fate, then Everything that happens in all of the games is because of fate. If fate exists in one game in the series, it has to exist in all of them. Fate doesn't explain one thing and not explain something else.

If Ganondorf was fated to have the ToP then Vaati was fated to have the cap that gives him his power.

Fate can't exist in one game and not in another. If fate exists then that means everything is controlled by it.

Also, Vaati only ever manages to absorb some of, not all of the 'light force.' Whereas Ganondorf gets the whole Triforce of Power. As there is alot of speculation that the Triforce and the light force are one and the same, this means, that even at his most powerful, Vaati would never be as powerful as Ganondorf.

Power doesn't necessarily have to decide that villainous rank of a bad guy. For instance, Bowser is the true villain in the Mario series but Mario has faced far more powerful (and more serious) villains than Bowser. Just because Ganondorf is the most powerful doesn't mean he is the true villain.

Also, it is actually quite skeptical whether or not Ganondorf is more powerful. Ganondorf has been after the full Triforce for a long time and has only gotten it once and then messed up his wish. Vaati was able to retrieve a cap that apparently has the same wish granting powers as the Triforce and Vaati doesn't mess up his wish. He got exactly what he wanted (to be the most powerful sorcerer in the world). If Ganondorf is so much more powerful, how come he is the one who seems to not be able to grasp the whole wish granting thing? Vaati had no problems getting his wish.

One final point is that Ganondorf specifically can only be killed by whoever posseses the master sword, and therefore by extension. Link. Whereas, Vaati could be destroyed by anyone, it is just pure coincidence that it is Link who assembles the 'Four Sword.'

The only thing wrong with this statement is that Vaati is never destroyed, only captured. Ganon/dorf has actually been destroyed on multiple occasions whereas Vaati has only ever been sealed within the Four Sword.

And you can't call Link being the one to stop him coincidence. It's clear that you believe in fate in the series and if fate brings Link to Ganon/dorf then it also brings him to Vaati. You can't use the idea that fate exists as an argument to prove one thing and then use it as evidence that it doesn't exist to disprove something else.

 

[Erimgard]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how "first" equals "truest".
How does Vaati being the first villian make him worse than Ganon?
Anyone?

 

[Len]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how "first" equals "truest".
How does Vaati being the first villian make him worse than Ganon?
Anyone?

well... this... is quite difficult to explain, since MC was a big hit for the GBA, ok so in order to answer that one is that:

because vaati is believed to be the worst and evil villain, so if he appeared first, ones can say that he is indeed the most evil and worst villain that have appeared that day, then if ganon appears to make evil after vaati does, ganon is taken to be the 2nd one, why?, because vaati was THE FIRST ONE that has been seen, the time passes and still he is seen like the most evil villain, then comes gannon (2nd)

 

[Steve]

He is used by Ganondorf in FSA, but in MC Vaati is the main, standalone villain.

Yeah, and ultimately it can be said it is Ganondorf, a real villian cannot be manipulated or used, we have yet to see Ganon used as such. The fact he strategizes to use people like Vaati and Zant, proves him to be the strongest adversary.

 

[Zemen]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how "first" equals "truest".
How does Vaati being the first villian make him worse than Ganon?
Anyone?

I pretty much already answered that question...and I'm going to answer with another question.

Why do you assume that Vaati being the "true" villain would make him the worst/strongest/most evil? Whether or not he is the true, first villain doesn't have to coincide with him being more evil. If you read my Mario example, this is the same thing. Bowser is definitely not the strongest villain that Mario has ever faced, yet he is still the "true," first villain of the Mushroom Kingdom. Vaati doesn't have to be stronger to be the true villain that started it all.

 

[angelkid]

Here is why I do not think that Vaati is the true villain of hyrule, and this is after completely re-thinking my argument.

The legend of Zelda games are stories, legends retold. At least that is what some people believe. Well, if this is so, the first legend to be told was LoZ and this included Ganon, and infact, Vaati was not included for a long time, until MC, this means, that he was not the true villain of hyrule. Why? If the games are legends retold, then the one retold first would be the most prominent. The one told first would be of that that included the villain who posed the most threat, and was the bigger evil. The one told first would be of the one who was the true villain.

If MC came first on the timeline, then why was it not re-told for so long? Reason: because the villain involved was of far less significance then the villain involved in the stories/legends which were told first.

 

[Zemen]

Here is why I do not think that Vaati is the true villain of hyrule, and this is after completely re-thinking my argument.

The legend of Zelda games are stories, legends retold. At least that is what some people believe. Well, if this is so, the first legend to be told was LoZ and this included Ganon, and infact, Vaati was not included for a long time, until MC, this means, that he was not the true villain of hyrule. Why? If the games are legends retold, then the one retold first would be the most prominent. The one told first would be of that that included the villain who posed the most threat, and was the bigger evil. The one told first would be of the one who was the true villain.

If MC came first on the timeline, then why was it not re-told for so long? Reason: because the villain involved was of far less significance then the villain involved in the stories/legends which were told first.

This argument only really works if this was a real world thing. The Legend of Zelda never took place in real world histroy. The reason MC wasn't made before LoZ is because it wasn't developed before it or because it wasn't thought up before it, not because it was less important. The games are in the order that the creators think them up in, not in the order of importance.

Also, LoZ was created before the timeline or before they even knew how far the series would go. I don't think the games are meant to be legends retold. They are just games with a story. Some games work off of previous games, some don't.

The point is, MC wasn't made after all of the Ganondorf games because Vaati is less important than Ganondorf, it's because the idea of MC just wasn't thought up yet.

 

[angelkid]

It's a good point. I can admit that my argument was slightly flawed in that it only worked for one thing, if the Zeldas were legends retold.

However, I have one question. If Vaati were the 'TRUE' villain of hyrule. Why is he never seen again? He's seen in MC, and the FS's games, the 'true' villian of hyrule would surely play a bigger part. Also, he is not really technically a villain of hyrule. He is only a villain because he wants something that is coincedentally in Hyrule, he has nothing against the place personally. Ganon/dorf however, his one true wish is to rule the world of Hyrule. Which he tries constantly to achieve.

Also, I think Ganon/dorf would be seen as a much bigger villain by the people of Hyrule. Let me use a metaphor to explain why. Lets say Vaati hits Hyrule harder, using your argument of him being the 'true' villain, for this reason, Vaati will be the bee and Ganon/dorf will be the wasp (reason being that bee stings hurt more and contain more poison.) Now lets say you are the people of Hyrule. Originally, your main enemy is the bee because getting stung by him hurts more, however after being stung by the bee 3 times and being stung by the wasp 9 times (this is in reference to Ganon's and Vaati's appearances in games so far) who will be your main enemy? Your true villain? The wasp, you fear him more because he stings purely out of spite. The bee stings you rarely and even if it does hurt more, it doesnt hurt that much more that you'd take 3 wasp stings as oppose to it.

So that is why I think Ganon/dorf is the true villain of Hyrule.

 

[Zemen]

Also, he is not really technically a villain of hyrule. He is only a villain because he wants something that is coincedentally in Hyrule.

Umm...Ganon/dorf wants to rule the world, in general, not JUST Hyrule, Hence why there are 2 games (OoX) that don't take place in Hyrule but are taken over by minions who are trying to revive Ganon. Also, you said Vaati attacks Hyrule because he coincidentally wants something that is in Hyrule. That is literally the same EXACT thing that Ganon/dorf does. He attacks Hyrule beacuse what he wants is in Hyrule, so this too is a flawed argument.

 

[Erimgard]

Even if he was the first, that wouldn't make him the TRUE villain.

The Zelda series is clearly about a struggle over the Triforce, and Ganondorf, not Vaati, is the physical embodiment of one of the three Triforce qualities.

Vaati's just a punk-*** midget who stumbled on some power.

 

[Zemen]

Even if he was the first, that wouldn't make him the TRUE villain.

The Zelda series is clearly about a struggle over the Triforce, and Ganondorf, not Vaati, is the physical embodiment of one of the three Triforce qualities.

Vaati's just a punk-*** midget who stumbled on some power.

I never truly believed that Vaati was the true villain. This was just a thread to get people thinking. We have always seen Ganondorf as the baddy that started it all, but it is very possible that Vaati was there before Ganondorf was.

And as I have stated earlier, Vaati's physical appearance, power, mental status, villain status doesn't have to play any part on whether or not he is the true villain. I am not saying he is the true villain, but if he is, he doesn't necessarily have to be the best.