• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Spoiler Wait a Minute... "Evil Incarnation of Darkness" (Something Interesting I Noticed)

Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Location
Idaho, USA
Sidenote: I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the Skyward Sword forum, but I decided here would be best because of the fact that it's about one aspect of Skyward Sword and Ocarina of Time that are tied together between the two games. So, yeah.


Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword spoilers below.

Anyway, so we all know how the origin of Ganon is explained in Skyward Sword. Demise is defeated, and, with the last of his power, curses Link and Zelda (or perhaps all Hylians... nuance.) with an incarnation of his immortal hatred, who we know is Ganon. Obviously.

At the end of Ocarina of Time, after Ganon is defeated, Rauru says, "Ancient creators of Hyrule! Now, open the sealed door and send the Evil Incarnation of Darkness into the void of the Evil Realm!"

...Whoa.
Before playing Skyward Sword, I had assumed that "Evil Incarnation of Darkness" was just some hyperbole title for Ganon. But with Skyward Sword, this actually makes sense.

Evil: Self-explanatory.
Incarnation: As we know, Ganon is the reincarnation of Demise/Demise's Hate. (Sidenote: I hate always having to use "Demise/Demise's Hate" when talking about Ganon as a reincarnation of him/it. The latter seems unnecessary to say, while the former is, using Demise's exact words as a source, not entirely correct.)
of Darkness: Demise, as is explained to us in Skyward Sword, is the source of all evil in the Zelda Universe. All monsters are from his domain, and anytime a monster is fought in the games, Demise's influence is being felt. Without Demise, there would be no Ganon, Vaati, or any common monsters. So, really, he can be described as "The Darkness" that is ever prevalent in the world of Hyrule.

Ocarina of Time was released in 1998. Skyward Sword in 2011. Yet this title used to refer to Ganon is perfectly suitable for what Ganon is. Perhaps it's just a coincedence, and "Evil Incarnation of Darkness" really is just hyperbole, and it suits Ganon after Skyward Sword, or maybe Nintendo used this line as inspiration for Demise and the origin of Ganon... who knows. Maybe Nintendo plans out the Zelda storyline further into the future than we think. Sometimes it appears to be that way, but I digress.

This is just a small morsel of interesting-ness that I noticed, and I deemed it threadworthy.
Anyway, thoughts?
 

iDarkLink

Sage of the Dark World
Joined
May 29, 2012
Location
Dark World, Sacred Realm
I'm suprised I never noticed that. After beating SS and OoT, you'd think I'd make the connection as well, but I didn't. Thanks for bringing up this tidbit of evidence to the Zelda theory table. :)
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
I am not entirely certain as to what you are trying to convey here. Hyperbole? If there is something I missed, please clarify. :yes:

As such, I shall focus solely on this:

Evil: Self-explanatory.
Incarnation: As we know, Ganon is the reincarnation of Demise/Demise's Hate. (Sidenote: I hate always having to use "Demise/Demise's Hate" when talking about Ganon as a reincarnation of him/it. The latter seems unnecessary to say, while the former is, using Demise's exact words as a source, not entirely correct.)
of Darkness: Demise, as is explained to us in Skyward Sword, is the source of all evil in the Zelda Universe. All monsters are from his domain, and anytime a monster is fought in the games, Demise's influence is being felt. Without Demise, there would be no Ganon, Vaati, or any common monsters. So, really, he can be described as "The Darkness" that is ever prevalent in the world of Hyrule.

I highly doubt Nintendo was inspired by a simple line of text (i.e. Evil incarnation of darkness) [alone] in the process of creating Demise. Instead, I find it more probable that the idea of Demise was conceived when Nintendo felt that the story necessitated the need to explain why things are the way they are in the Zelda universe. Demise - as you mentioned - serves as the origin of all evil in the Zelda universe.

However, Ganondorf is never confirmed to be the direct reincarnation of Demise. Demise's Curse to be more of a figure of rhetoric than a literal curse, per se.

Though this is not the end. My hate... never perishes. It is born anew in a cycle with no end! I will rise again! Those like you... Those who share the blood of the goddess and the spirit of the hero... They are eternally bound to this curse. An incarnation of my hatred shall ever follow your kind, dooming them to wander a blood-soaked sea of darkness for all time!

— The curse of Demise

Such a line is subject to interpretation, but in my opinion, it seems to sum up the idea that hatred can never die, while Demise is, in essence, "dead."

•Demise

The source of all monsters, powerful enough to destroy the entire world. Demise is the embodiment of evil and it is said that its appearance changes with each era and to each person who observes it. Its goal is to claim the Triforce let its demonic hordes take control over the surface world.

•The Return to the Surface

Zelda and crew returned to their own era. They looked at the peaceful wind blowing over the world and they could feel the beginning of a new era. Zelda made a decision to live on the surface and watch over the Triforce.

However, the extinction of Demise was not the end of the battle. This was the beginning of the endless cycle of the conflict of those bound to the curse of the demon that have the Blood of the Goddess and the Spirit of the Hero.

The excerpts above - from Hyrule Historia - might suggest that Demise does indeed reincarnate into the various forms of evil seen in the series. This, however, still does nothing to suggest that Ganondorf is the sole [re]incarnation of Demise, but rather, Demise's hate takes on many forms in the series [i.e. Vaati, Bellum, Veran, etc.].

But then:

•Fi and Impa

Fi also fulfilled her role and her contract with Link was dissolved. The Master Sword was returned to its pedestal, and enters a long slumber along with Fi. Impa stays in the Past in order to watch over the sword, ensuring the complete eradication of Demise’s residual conciousness.

The above, along with Fi's in-game dialogue, seems to attest to the fact Demise's Curse is simply a figure of rhetoric a not a literal case.

(Source)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fused_shadows

Brave Knight of Truth
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Location
Toronto, Canada
I definitely agree with you in the thought that Nintendo might have been thinking into the future when they made OoT and that line. Maybe they werent thinking about Demise and Skyward Sword persay, but of the idea of a character being the main source of evil in Hyrule whom is going to be appearing in a future game. Skyward Sword was that game.

It is more than plausible; it is almost guaranteed. With all the success Zelda 1, Zelda 2, and Alttp had it was almost certain that Nintendo knew that had made a game that was even better than those three, and that alone could be a great reason as to why Nintendo was thinking ahead; they knew we would want more. After OoT, they created a quick game based of OoT Just to meet our demands for more. They probably had the Demise idea in the back of their minds, they should kept it for later games.
 
Personally, while this may not have been a planned endeavor on Nintendo's part initially, the development team took great care with trying to tie together various aspects of the series possibly in anticipation of the Hyrule Historia timeline. The problem, however, is that certain other important characters such as Fi from Skyward Sword have not made an earlier franchise debut in any way, shape, or form. Considering the fact that Fi is essentially the essence residing within the Master Sword, I find this highly perplexing.

fused_shadows said:
They probably had the Demise idea in the back of their minds, they should kept it for later games.

As hesitant as I am to agree with this, I remain steadfast by my original thesis that Nintendo's aim has been to connect the timeline all along as seen with the names of villages in Adventure of Link being the same as those of the sages in Ocarina of Time.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Hmm... I think I am now starting to see where the OP is going with this. I can assure you [the OP] that the concept of Demise is a more recent idea, and was not foreshadowed in the events of Ocarina of Time. Going further, I can also assure you that he was not "born" from the aforementioned line of text that you've mentioned (i.e. "evil incarnation of darkness"). Skyward Sword, a game whose plot predates the events of Ocarina of Time, as a whole seems to be an example of retroactive continuity, also known as retcon. Retcon is the alteration of previously established facts in a fictional work, usually as an attempt to explain why things are the way they are; in other words, retcon serves to answer a series' many questions.

In the case of Skyward Sword, its many characters, settings, and ideas serve to "answer the question" of where many of the series' staples originated [i.e. the Master Sword, Zelda's lineage, etc.] As such, it is highly probable that Demise is the "answer" as to why evil exists in the series; a source of retcon. Said source had never existed before Skyward Sword came about [years later], as retcon takes place after a work of fiction [in this case, a game: OoT] is released.

To the point: Miyamoto [and others] have made it known that gameplay comes first and foremost when creating a game, and its story and placement in the timeline is determined at a later time. This alone might attest to the fact that Demise was conceived at a later time, and not during the time of Ocarina of Time's conception; Demise wasn't even thought of.

Quotes from Miyamoto [and others]:
Shigeru Miyamoto said:
[...]I can't answer that, but the gameplay is always the most important. I always put the least priority into story.

Shigeru Miyamoto said:
[...]Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time.

Miyamoto has established that Ocarina of Time is the first on the timeline since as far back as the game was released [before SS was thought of].

Shigeru Miyamoto said:
This is the very first Zelda story. If all we ever did was try to continue the story, we'd lose some of the interest. It's fun to jump back and forth.

Eiji Aonuma said:
It's certainly not the same story being told over and over again. It's not that we have a one thousand year time span between every game or anything like that.

When creating a Zelda game there is the connection between Link and Zelda and the Triforce and Ganon. When we get set to make a new Zelda game, we are focusing on the theme of the game and the game play rather than to create a new timeline for the series.

Dan Owsen said:
Heh, well, all I can tell you is, when I asked Mr. Miyamoto about the order of the games, he admitted that he didn't know! I really think the order of the stories is not that important to the game's creators. Each game is a stand-alone piece, and if there are connections between them, that's great. But they never intentionally do things in a game just so it will connect with another. The creators did tell me a few times that they didn't want to set any story points in stone, as that would restrict them in future games. I worked on three Zelda games screen text. Even when writing the text, it was funky because they were very picky about the wording so it wasn't specific. It made it sound strange, but hey it was their game so I did the text the way they wanted.

So.... not sure if I can really give more details than that....

Last but not least:

Shigeru Miyamoto said:
[...] Yes. I don't think that a story alone can make a game exciting. I'm afraid that people think that I ignore story lines or that I don't feel that the story has any value. My first priority is whether the game play is interesting. What I mean by that is that a player is actively involved in the game. The story is just one of the ways to get players interested, like the enemies or puzzles. If you just want a good story, you should pick up a novel or see a movie. The difference is in the participation. In a game, you might meet a character, but you don't find out his story until later, after you do something that reveals the truth about him. It's all up to the player. You only get that sort of experience with the interactive entertainment. Of course, the scenario, characters and graphics are all important, but its this active attitude that is the most important element.

(source)

Think of it this way: How could Demise [or SS in general] have been in mind during the creation process of Ganondorf [or OoT in general], given what is suggested in the above statements?
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Huh. It's cool that they tied it in like that. That would be a lot of forethought. I barely remember it saying that in OoT.
 

Mrflamexd3

Wind Waker!
Joined
Apr 6, 2012
Location
California
Even though Skyward Sword came out 13 years after Ocarina of Time, Ocarina of Time existed so they made reference to it because Skyward Sword "on the timeline" comes before Ocarina of Time.
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Location
Illinois
I think its a coincidence. But I think they could have been thinking ahead when they wrote that line and saved it for Skyward Sword.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom