Why Sheik will Return

[blueriku]

ok there are some things agree with but i want to point somethings out other than this circus you have everything well thought....

"Hugely popular" and "had a large fanbase" are essentially the same points expressed with different words, so you can't use them as different pros for Sheik. Regardless, the main reason Sheik was popular was because she's so newbie friendly. She's got combo skills AND plenty of killing strokes. A REALLY fun character to play as. But that's the main reason MOST people liked her. You know it; I know it; the world knows it no matter how much some people may deny it. There are SOME legitimate Sheik fans out there, but they're greatly outnumbered by the ones who loved her for her hitboxes.

you are right about this circus newbies love sheik i often wonder if their was a poll with zelda fans and why they like sheik and smasher and why like sheik how would it turn out even though the poll would be highly predictable, anyways with statistic view on this (meaning actual proof on both sides) their is not much to argue here it would all be just speculation since you could only say the newbie likes sheik statement based off of a smashers experience....

You don't know that.

nowone will know until an announcement or when the game comes out so their should be no debate here so i would agree with you circus for all we know sakurai could just have us wait till the game comes out to find out about sheiks fate...

THANK YOU.

Sheik is a one game, mediocre character, from a game with a PLETHORA of installments, in which she'll likely NEVER return. There is quite literally ZERO reason why she deserves to return - she was in ONE game, did next to NOTHING, and will never be in another Zelda game, EVER. She is now officially worthless to the Zelda franchise, and by extension, Smash Bros.

okay first off zero reason to return...eh but their is also zero reason for her not be taken out this statement is only based off you opinion yes i acknowledge that, but when you say this you should at lease give some reasons why she does not deserve to come back other than that this statement of her is seriously ********. idk maybe you have some kind of hate toward sheik lol....anyways in one game and did next to nothing.....okay yes she was in one game but the part when link becomes an adult in OOT...well sheik did a lot for link and quite frankly link would be screwed why; 1. sheik was hiding Zelda(duh) without that gannon would of found her quite easily 2. sheik helped link get to all the temples not only that but in the official cannon manga sheik helped link get his master sword and the rest of his crap back after bing captured as well as telling link that impa could train him further of the use of a sword since impa was just chillin a kakariko village to protect it so yea.... now as for the never be in another Zelda game well you don't know that now do you. as for the worthless part well i think i already have a good argument towards that but also sheik is an excellent character to introduce newbies to smash.

 

[Shadowbolt]

Dear lord, man - learn to use punctuation, for all of our sakes.

And yes, you know **** well that Sheik is never going to return in any future Zelda games.



As for the article suggesting her design or whatever, all it said was that they submitted their INITIAL designs for Link, Sheik and Ganondorf. Since Sheik was never in TP, what INITIAL artwork could they have given besides her OoT artwork?

It says nothing about redesigning Sheik to have a TP appearance.

You see? It's still entirely possible that Sheik could only end up as an AT or trophy.

 

[Fawriel]

Not to mention that submitting artwork is likely not a lot of work... it could quite possibly be that just about any company/division/etc. working on games with characters who have the slightest chance... were called to submit some of their character designs. After all, Sakurai needs some material to work with before even deciding who gets in... how else would he have known about Roy? And I strongly doubt that they'll just give him access to some sort of database and make the poor guy find out everything himself...
As long as the article doesn't downright state that Sakurai requested some new designs, nothing's quite proven.

PS: Cheers, Andy. ^^


PSS: I realized I didn't read the article closely enough. Oh well.

 

[ScaryMunky]

I reckon there's a good chance that Zelda will be able to transform into Sheik.

By all rights, the list of "moves Zelda can do" isn't terribly set, as they are all things that would be made up, considering that we never see her fight a terrible much. Adding a Sheik transformation fills up one of these move slots.

I strongly disagree with the argument that the "TP Design" means no Sheik. I wouldn't call this Zelda the "TP design", it's just a version with better graphics. The Zelda in TP is *how* Zelda looks, just in older games, you couldn't have Zelda looking as detailed. And sure, any features that have changed aren't really completely altering reality to the point that she can't be the same Zelda that could become Sheik.

And, in terms of the argument of Sheik being a 'one-time character', there are plently of characters who had few games they turned up in. From Brawl, you've got characters like the Ice-Climbers, who never turned up much. And in Brawl you've got Pit, who turned up in two games.

Either way, I hope Sheik comes back. ^^

Just because a character has looks based on his/her recent series doesn't ensure that they will be diffirent.This is the same case with Shiek as she didn't have needles and a chain in OoT.

Pit never had twin blades that shoot energy enduced Bows,but they gave them to him anyway.His anime look was also introduced despite his actual looks.

Smash Bros. characters don't base themselves off of the most recent series,it's just your favorite Nintendo characters competing against eachother for no definate reason.Let's keep it that way and not strip the imagination of smash bros.

Quoted for truth, from the New Character: Zelda thread. They more or less sum up how I'm feeling about this, and I'm lazy.

 

[Yo~Yo]

sheik

i think since sheik was an OoT character and technically zelda is in her twili. model they should make sheik her own char and give them both new bmoves

 

[Drake3]

And, in terms of the argument of Sheik being a 'one-time character', there are plently of characters who had few games they turned up in. From Brawl, you've got characters like the Ice-Climbers, who never turned up much. And in Brawl you've got Pit, who turned up in two games.

No, no, no. That's not the point we're trying to make. Sheik is insignificant to the Legend of Zelda series. There are multiple Zelda games with hundreds of characters that render the alter-ego that is Sheik, to be nothing more than a speck. The Ice Climbers are the main characters of their game and their series, and the same is true for Pit.

And how dare you refer to me as "someone", Fawriel. >_>

 

[xianfeng]

IMO Shiek will return, because she's awesome.

He is one of the cheapest and most overrated characters in SSBM along with Marth and Fox, however unlike them he doesn't hold any importance at all in his own franchise.

But just becuase Zelda has her TP design doesnt mean shes limited from her(Link's) OoT moves.

Zelda's other moves were items from OoT in the 100 odd years between OoT and TP those items could remain in Hyrule for the royal family to use however Zelda transforming into her ancestor doesn't make sense, imagine WW Link transforming into Wolf Link, this is the exact same thing.

Also many people say she was just in one game, and this doesnt fit in the continuity, since when is Smash based on continuity,

Never but still, it's never been so outragous as to directly defy a series canon, they've always had movesets loosly based on the series and the current game in the series. Sheik is now old and unneeded.

and Lucas and Pit were only in one game(btw Technically Sheik was in Two. )

Lucas' series only has three games in and Pit was in two games which constitutes his whole series. The legend of Zelda series has had 14 odd games now and Sheik has only appeared in one, which is a really minor character.

 

[Zoo-bellocks]

Wow. I used to be afraid of speaking up about wanting Sheik removed because I thought I'd be mercilessly flamed for merely suggesting it. It's good to finally see others who share my position.

Sheik really has become a pointless character. The transformation gimmick was kind of cool back when Melee came out because OoT was still fairly fresh in everyone's minds, but now the character has just become completely unnecessary. The only reasons I ever see for her to be included again are because she's "good", which goes without saying is a bad reason.

However, it would be a bit of a waste to completely throw the whole character out. Maybe they can recycle the model to use for a more deserving character, though I can't really think of who would fit.

 

[Rahd]

quiet honestly, i'v never met anyone whos played zelda for zelda

also for those who say sheik has only appeared in one game and that is an old game
what about ice climbers? when was their last game?

 

[ScaryMunky]

He is one of the cheapest and most overrated characters in SSBM along with Marth and Fox, however unlike them he doesn't hold any importance at all in his own franchise.

Do not look at Sheik as a completely new person, but an ability that Zelda has at her disposal. With the mindset of Sheik being an ability (as it's still Zelda, remember) rather than a completely new character, why does "he" have to have starred in "his" own series to be worth anything?

Zelda's Sheik transformation appeared in one game. So did Diddy's peanut guns, along with Mario's FLUDD, and both of those are included.

Zelda's other moves were items from OoT in the 100 odd years between OoT and TP those items could remain in Hyrule for the royal family to use however Zelda transforming into her ancestor doesn't make sense, imagine WW Link transforming into Wolf Link, this is the exact same thing.

Stop roping characters from Brawl into a timeline. The TP look is the most graphically updated version of Zelda. That is how she looks, that's it.

 

[SuperLink9]

Uhm, I'm not an avid member of the Smash Bros community, but... What's with all the Shiek hate? Seriously, I don't get a bit of it. First of all, she's a character. Second of all, she has a unique moveset. She's not the best character in the game by any means. She may be a really good character to use, but people who actually try to improve at the game should have no problem beating a Shiek using noob. So what's the problem!?

Besides, as far as noob characters go, I think Mario & Kirby beat Shiek anyway, for newer players, Shiek, moving pretty fast, is quite hard to use. Besides, if she is overpowered (not saying she definitely is, but if she is) then she could be nerfed, just like some of the characters actually WERE in their transition from SSB64 to SSBM anyway.

 

[Circus]

Circus, you almost make me reconsider my sexual orientation.

I have that effect on people. Men, women, potatoes, Sheik, Birdo. Basically, everyone.

*realizes he's responding to a quote that clearly never existed*

. . . .

This Zelda has no reason for having the ability to transform into a male Sheikah. Except for fetish purposes. Or, hell, comedic purposes. The new smash hit anime straight from Japan, Zelda 1/2, featuring whacky tomboy female Link as the token love interest! Squee!

I can already hear the clickity-clack of the fanfiction being written!

Okay, Circus, I know you're making a point there, and I find it both intelligent and insightful. But I have to say, I've been waiting for Pikachu to do all of those things since SSB64. C'mon, can he at least say the "takin' out the trash" lines?

If he must. But as compensation, I demand that Mario gets a Hitler alternate costume (if he can be a plumber and a doctor, he can **** well be a Fuhrer).

This would be so much more effective if I had prepared a cleverly photoshop'd picture.

However, speaking in terms of what we know, I think we can establish that Sheik will return. I'm actually surprised nobody has mentioned the Aunoma (sp?) article yet. It's been floating around forever. It's linked on the Zelda Down + B Discussion, I believe. I'll try and dig it up (again) if its that big of a deal. Anyhow, it basically states that the director of Twilight Princess was approached by Sakurai to approve Twilight Princess-ish designs of Gannondorf and Sheik for Brawl.

Some people think this means she will return as an AT. That makes no sense to me. Why update her to match Twilight Princess specs, just to stick her in a Trophy? Especially when, as a trophy character she would be representing the game she was actually in, OoT, as opposed to the Zelda series overall. Also, why overhaul any character for a trophy? I mean, Andross is showing up in his SNES form. There is also her moveset to consider, and the fact that tossing it out completely, when you've already gone through the work of redesigning her makes no sense whatsoever.

For that reason, I'd say it's looking a lot like Sheik will be returning playably. I say this with full understanding that she is an extremely insignificant character in the Zelda series, and that there are many better characters to replace her. I don't like it either. I'm just trying to look at the facts.

The real question in my mind is whether or not Sakurai has the common sense of an autistic Pichu to understand that linking (no pun intended) Twilight Princess Zelda and OoT Sheik is pure madness. Only time will tell for sure.

Say it ain't so! I see your point though (the biggest kick I've gotten is when someone claimed Sheik's redesign might have been made to put her in as a sticker), but, worst case scenario, surely the separate character option is still viable, right?

Right?

. . . Right?

also for those who say sheik has only appeared in one game and that is an old game
what about ice climbers? when was their last game?

Ice Climbers are the main characters of their game.
Sheik is a fleck of confetti amongst the characters of the Zelda universe.

Do not look at Sheik as a completely new person, but an ability that Zelda has at her disposal. With the mindset of Sheik being an ability (as it's still Zelda, remember) rather than a completely new character, why does "he" have to have starred in "his" own series to be worth anything?

Zelda's Sheik transformation appeared in one game. So did Diddy's peanut guns, along with Mario's FLUDD, and both of those are included.

That's a good way of looking at it. The thing is, that's an ability that a different person had at her disposal. Mario may use the FLUDD, but he didn't steal FLUDD from some other mustachioed Italian man named Mario, did he?

Stop roping characters from Brawl into a timeline. The TP look is the most graphically updated version of Zelda. That is how she looks, that's it.

That's one theory, yes. But Link's more-than-graphically-updated moveset shows that continuity was a factor that Sakurai considered when designing him. I can only hope that seeing the artwork for TP style Sheik knocked a screw back into place that allowed Sakurai to apply the same logic to Zelda.

 

[SuperLink9]

Ice Climbers are the main characters of their game.
Sheik is a fleck of confetti amongst the characters of the Zelda universe.

But if you think about it, Shiek is one of the FEW MAIN characters in the Zelda Universe. Sheik has more right to appear then Midna, possibly. Even for the simple fact that Shiek is one of the most memorable characters from the most popular Zelda of all time.

Putting in a main character from a Zelda game like Ralph (Oracle of Ages) or Vaati (from Minish Cap) simply wouldn't work, because people have no idea who they are.

Shiek is far more recognised as a character than Ice Climbers (I'm willing to bet) & is, so to speak, an icon of the most famous Zelda game ever made. As far as Zelda characters go, is there any character, who can actually fight, who's more well known than Shiek? Being the (arguably) 2nd biggest Nintendo series, Zelda is surely entitled to at least 5 character slots in SSB? Even Pokémon has 4.

 

[szh]

If Sheik returns, I doubt she will be a separate character from Zelda in the selection screen. They are the same person after all (although well, I guess Dr.Mario and Mario are the same too, so I just pwned myself )

Or maybe Nintendo will just announce a new Zelda game they've been secretly working on one day before Brawl releases. And maybe it will be a direct sequel to OoT/MM and there will be Sheik in it 0.o

 

[Circus]

But if you think about it, Shiek is one of the FEW MAIN characters in the Zelda Universe. Sheik has more right to appear then Midna, possibly. Even for the simple fact that Shiek is one of the most memorable characters from the most popular Zelda of all time.

A character in a stand-out game is not necessarily a stand-out character. Sheik isn't memorable so much as the twist of her actually being Zelda is. Without that, Sheik would be as easily cast aside as any other secondary character.

Putting in a main character from a Zelda game like Ralph (Oracle of Ages) or Vaati (from Minish Cap) simply wouldn't work, because people have no idea who they are.

Can't argue there. Characters outside the trio bonded by the Tri-force seem like no-no's to me (which, yes, did include Sheik when she appeared in Melee, but that was a special circumstance. Different Zelda, different trio).

Shiek is far more recognised as a character than Ice Climbers (I'm willing to bet)

A goomba is probably more recognizable than Lucas, purely because EVERYONE has played a Mario game before. What's your point?

Besides, the Ice Climbers are a unique case in that the reason they were ever even brought to Melee was due to their unique partner-play potential. They're special in this way. If you've noticed, Pokemon Trainer has kind of stolen the Zelda-Sheik transformation's thunder with the pokemon switch-out. The thing that made the transformation idea a good idea for Melee has lost it's uniqueness.

Ice Climbers arguably may have been brought back for their gimmick alone (in fact, I wouldn't doubt it). Sheik doesn't have her gimmick to ride on anymore.

& is, so to speak, an icon of the most famous Zelda game ever made.

She's certainly a character in the most famous Zelda game ever made, but icon might be pushing it. When you say "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time", Sheik is not the first thing I think of.

As far as Zelda characters go, is there any character, who can actually fight, who's more well known than Shiek?

"who can actually fight"? Are we really going to have to get into the any-character-with-limbs-has-moveset-potential discussion? Besides, when did you even see Sheik fight before she was in Melee?

Being the (arguably) 2nd biggest Nintendo series, Zelda is surely entitled to at least 5 character slots in SSB? Even Pokémon has 4.

The Zelda series isn't entitled to a specific number as far as I'm concerned. They just need the characters that best represent their franchise. For Zelda, that means Link, Zelda and Ganondorf. For Kirby, that means Kirby, Meta Knight, and Dedede. To me, it just looks like franchises get enough reps to cover their important characters.

And Pokemon has 2 reps. But I won't be getting into that discussion here.

 

[ScaryMunky]

That's a good way of looking at it. The thing is, that's an ability that a different person had at her disposal. Mario may use the FLUDD, but he didn't steal FLUDD from some other mustachioed Italian man named Mario, did he?

This is where I disagree; your reasoning is based on the fact that like many others you're associating characters with a specific timeline.

 

[Circus]

This is where I disagree; your reasoning is based on the fact that like many others you're associating characters with a specific timeline.

Why shouldn't I? Unlike any other series that SSB represents, Zelda actually has a timeline that profoundly effects it's characters (that is, changes them all the time). Other characters can get away with not obeying a strict timeline because their timelines do not strongly conflict with them as a character (Mario can keep FLUDD because doing do does not change him as a character in any way. Zelda transforming into Sheik effectively defines her as the Zelda from Ocarina of Time, which her character design disagrees with).

Whether or not the conflicts that are brought up with Zelda's timeline matter differs from person to person. I, like many, would prefer to avoid the continuity issues. You, like many others, don't seem to mind them. It's all perspective, I guess. I'm just defending mine.

 

[SuperLink9]

Pokémon has 4 characters in Melee. I can see that increasing for Brawl.

As for "characters that can fight". Well Koopa the Quick in SM64 is a fairly generic looking Koopa if you ask me. That, & Mario could likely defeat him the same way he beats every Koopa. Obviously if all characters in Smash Bros were at their real strength, then they're be completely un even (with characters like Samus & Link being stronger etc) but a Koopa in Smash Bros as a character that won't die in a few hits would just feel weird. Unless it's for comic relief (maybe like Mr G&W) like Shiek certainly isn't, it would just look weird to have a weak character like that.

Besides, Shiek fought in the Official manga, the manga isn't entirely canonical though, so I won't base my argument on it. You can clearly tell from OoT though, that Shiek is a very athletic & ninja-esque character, especially with all the flips & smoke bombs. That & shiekah are meant to be body guards/guardians on the royal family, so one would assume they're apt for combat anyway.

Besides, have you ever really seen Ice Climber fight properly before they were in Melee? Not entirely, not much more or less than Shiek, & Ice Climber returned.

& by the way, Ice Climber was first put up as a candidate to represent the 3rd gen consoles (NES) for Melee, & did get through because of the unique character desjgn & how they work. Is Shiek also not unique? Surely for a character with a moveset that unique, it would be a shame to ditch Shiek, but keep Ganondorf (as it seems likely he'll return)

As for comparing Shiek to a Goomba as far as recognition goes, Goombas are quite famous indeed, I won't deny that, but does a single Goomba have a pivitol role in a big game of the Mario series? I don't think so no. The fact remains that Shiek is one of the few Zelda characters that stand out, Zelda is a big series, you may think a series' popularity may have no affect on the number of characters from that series, but I think it does. (Opinion I guess)

Take into account Young Link is a clone of Link, & Ganondorf is a clone of Captain Falcon (quite tragically) the Zelda series only has 3 unique characters in Melee, in Brawl, without Shiek, that would likely become 2.

EDIT: As for the continuity thing, saying Zelda can't change into Shiek because of the setting in the timeline, well where abouts in the Zelda timeline is that? Wind Waker & Twilight Princess are completely parallel, but for all we know they could be at the same time. Does this mean Twilght Zelda can transform into Cel Tetra? Or is it the most recent game in the Zelda timeline? In which case it could arguably be Link to the Past.

EDIT2: I havn't read the whole thread, so just so I know are you anti-Shiek, or are you simply arguing why she may not be reappearing? (I often argue from the point of the underdog just for the sake of argument, so I would understand that position)

 

[Circus]

Pokémon has 4 characters in Melee. I can see that increasing for Brawl.

As for "characters that can fight". Well Koopa the Quick in SM64 is a fairly generic looking Koopa if you ask me. That, & Mario could likely defeat him the same way he beats every Koopa. Obviously if all characters in Smash Bros were at their real strength, then they're be completely un even (with characters like Samus & Link being stronger etc) but a Koopa in Smash Bros as a character that won't die in a few hits would just feel weird. Unless it's for comic relief (maybe like Mr G&W) like Shiek certainly isn't, it would just look weird to have a weak character like that.

I agree. I didn't like the piss-poor Koopa the Quick analogy I had originally, so I changed it shortly after posting. Point well made.

Besides, Shiek fought in the Official manga, the manga isn't entirely canonical though, so I won't base my argument on it. You can clearly tell from OoT though, that Shiek is a very athletic & ninja-esque character, especially with all the flips & smoke bombs. That & shiekah are meant to be body guards/guardians on the royal family, so one would assume they're apt for combat anyway.

Besides, have you ever really seen Ice Climber fight properly before they were in Melee? Not entirely, not much more or less than Shiek, & Ice Climber returned.

Exactly, which just proves that fighting experience isn't necessary. Therefor, in response to the question "Who could replace Sheik who could actually fight?", the answer is "a character need not have fighting experience, and there need not be a replacement for Sheik. She should just go (or at least be removed from Zelda's moveset)".

My opinion.

& by the way, Ice Climber was first put up as a candidate to represent the 3rd gen consoles (NES) for Melee, & did get through because of the unique character desjgn & how they work. Is Shiek also not unique? Surely for a character with a moveset that unique, it would be a shame to ditch Shiek, but keep Ganondorf (as it seems likely he'll return)

But the odds of Ganondorf coming back as a clone are astronomical. The only reason he suffered such a fate in Melee was due to time constraints. If anything, by removing Sheik, we'd only be trading out one moveset (hers) for another (Ganondorf's new, original one).

As for comparing Shiek to a Goomba as far as recognition goes, Goombas are quite famous indeed, I won't deny that, but does a single Goomba have a pivitol role in a big game of the Mario series? I don't think so no. The fact remains that Shiek is one of the few Zelda characters that stand out, Zelda is a big series, you may think a series' popularity may have no affect on the number of characters from that series, but I think it does. (Opinion I guess)

Too true. Though, assuming that Zelda is entitled to more reps, I would argue that other characters still out-prioritize Sheik as far as pivotal roles are concerned. In my opion, Midna played a much more pivotal role in the game she appeared in than Sheik did in the one she appeared in.

Take into account Young Link is a clone of Link, & Ganondorf is a clone of Captain Falcon (quite tragically) the Zelda series only has 3 unique characters in Melee, in Brawl, without Shiek, that would likely become 2.

Again, Ganondorf will likely be getting a new moveset. I would be thoroughly shocked if Sakurai decided to keep Ganondorf a clone of Captain Falcon when he seems to have ample time to change him.

Likewise, if Young Link were to return (whether in the form of the Link from Wind Waker or not), he would also likely be given a unique moveset. In general, I don't see there being any clones in Brawl, no matter what past precedent suggests about the character.

EDIT: As for the continuity thing, saying Zelda can't change into Shiek because of the setting in the timeline, well where abouts in the Zelda timeline is that? Wind Waker & Twilight Princess are completely parallel, but for all we know they could be at the same time. Does this mean Twilght Zelda can transform into Cel Tetra? Or is it the most recent game in the Zelda timeline? In which case it could arguably be Link to the Past.

I'm not sure I completely follow you, but as far as parallel timelines go, I'd have to say I have just as large a problem with that as I do with Zelda's in the same timeline. I'm bothered by the idea of Twilight Princess Zelda performing an OoT Zelda maneuver, and by extension, I have a problem with Twilight Princess Zelda becoming a character from an entirely separate timeline. If. . . that's what you were talking about.

EDIT: I wouldn't say I'm anti-Sheik so much as I am pro-continuity preservation. But the long and the short of it is yes, I would prefer it if Sheik just kept away from Zelda's moveset, regardless of whether that's likely or not. I don't hate Sheik specifically; it would just bother me to see her stay attached to Zelda's hip in Brawl. I know where you're coming from with the "defending the underdog" stuff though. For characters I'm completely indifferent about (Lucario, for example), I will sometimes argue over them just to create (hopefully) healthy discussion.

 

[blueriku]

Dear lord, man - learn to use punctuation, for all of our sakes.

And yes, you know **** well that Sheik is never going to return in any future Zelda games.



As for the article suggesting her design or whatever, all it said was that they submitted their INITIAL designs for Link, Sheik and Ganondorf. Since Sheik was never in TP, what INITIAL artwork could they have given besides her OoT artwork?

It says nothing about redesigning Sheik to have a TP appearance.

You see? It's still entirely possible that Sheik could only end up as an AT or trophy.

Yea...I'm Assuming you are talking to me..... well it was late and i was very board so i guess i got careless with the punctuation sorry. Anyways you could say sheik is not going to return ever, but u still don't know that now do you. Ill admit the fact that sheik is most likely a one time deal, but you still don't know that she is never going to appear in another LOZ game anything could happen.

 

[Fawriel]

Whew. I couldn't get myself to go on reading at some point. Too early for that. I'm sure Circus goes on to be a great defendant of continuity anyway.
I'll just throw this in in regards to an argument somewhere back up there:
Ocarina of Time got enough representation by now. Adding up characters from 64 and Melee, OoT got.. *counts on fingers* ... 6 1/2 characters already. I mean, it's an amazing game, but there's a reason why they call it a series. Time to move on, here.

Also, calling Sheik more important than Midna... no.
Midna practically had Twilight Princess named after her. Sheik, on the other hand, is a disguise. Which places her on the same level as any other elaborate plot device, like, say, the Ocarina itself or Tingle in Wind Waker or something.

 

[SuperLink9]

I'm not sure I completely follow you, but as far as parallel timelines go, I'd have to say I have just as large a problem with that as I do with Zelda's in the same timeline. I'm bothered by the idea of Twilight Princess Zelda performing an OoT Zelda maneuver, and by extension, I have a problem with Twilight Princess Zelda becoming a character from an entirely separate timeline. If. . . that's what you were talking about.

OK, I'm going to try & explain that a little better. Maybe a little different.

Zelda's moveset has never mirrored her actual game techniques, like I just wrote in another thread, Zelda has never been able to use the 3 Goddess' spells, Din's Fire, Farore's Wind, & Nayru's Love, unless she managed to get them sometime in OoT, it wasn't even ever mentioned, but her transformation into Shiek was. As far as Melee Zelda goes, her transformation to Shiek is possible the only accurate move in her whole moveset

But I'm not going to base my argument on that, as you said, this isn't OoT Zelda anymore. It's TP Zelda. That adds infinately to my point, The 3 Goddess spells don't even EXIST in TP, as far as we know. When I say as far as we know, who's to say Zelda couldn't transform into Shiek in TP? We all knew she was oftentimes dressed in a huge robe with the famous symbol of the Shiekah on it. Shiek has as much chance of being in TP as the 3 Goddess spells, if not more, simply because Zelda never used these spells in any of the games (excluding Melee of course) & Zelda has transformed into Shiek, there's even evidence to suggest the Shiekah in TP.

Now that I've finished explaining that point.

I wouldn't say I'm anti-Sheik so much as I am pro-continuity preservation. But the long and the short of it is yes, I would prefer it if Sheik just kept away from Zelda's moveset, regardless of whether that's likely or not. I don't hate Sheik specifically; it would just bother me to see her stay attached to Zelda's hip in Brawl. I know where you're coming from with the "defending the underdog" stuff though. For characters I'm completely indifferent about (Lucario, for example), I will sometimes argue over them just to create (hopefully) healthy discussion.

Now that I see where you're coming from, I can agree. Shiek is taking up a space on Zelda's moveset. I personally don't mind how Shiek is in the game (Final Smash, seperate slot, Zelda's moveset) all I know is that I would like Shiek to return. Like I said in the other thread, Shiek could easily have a seperate character slot this time, simply due to the fact that they're 2 Zeldas from 2 completely different points in time.

As for Midna, personally I think she'd be an excellent addition to the game, however since TP was only released a year ago, Sakurai may not want to put Midna in the game. (simply because Midna's true form is a spoiler in itself) I mean, I even thought that Shiek in Melee was a bit of a spoiler. Obviously if Midna was to be in Brawl, she should be in her true form. I can definitely see her fighting. & that's where the problem is in. Of course if Sakurai doesn't care about spoilers (let's face it, anyone who's wanted TP will have got it for one of the 2 systems it came out on, & anyone who takes a year to complete a game that easy may never have completed it) then he may just go ahead & put Midna in it. (Midna for Brawl!)

I also wanted Tingle in Brawl, simply because he seems quite iconic (annoying as hell for some, but I'm over that) he could have been a great joke/comic releif character.

[Reply to Fawriel]

Why add them up? Link in 64 & Melee are the exact same character, & they're based on the most recent big Zelda game that fits SSB's style. Arguably, OoT doesn't have ANY representation any more, because Link & Zelda (likely Ganondorf too) will be showing off their Twilight Princess attire. So does that mean Twilight Princess has too much representation? I think on the contrary, but unless Shiek is in it, OoT may well have none at all. Besides, evidence points to Shiek being redesigned for Brawl, so would that infact mean that OoT has NO representation anyway?

 

[Fawriel]

But I'm not going to base my argument on that, as you said, this isn't OoT Zelda anymore. It's TP Zelda. That adds infinately to my point, The 3 Goddess spells don't even EXIST in TP, as far as we know. When I say as far as we know, who's to say Zelda couldn't transform into Shiek in TP? We all knew she was oftentimes dressed in a huge robe with the famous symbol of the Shiekah on it. Shiek has as much chance of being in TP as the 3 Goddess spells, if not more, simply because Zelda never used these spells in any of the games (excluding Melee of course) & Zelda has transformed into Shiek, there's even evidence to suggest the Shiekah in TP.

Err, no. The three goddesses are some of the constants in the whole series. Gods don't just, like... die and vanish. They are forever constant. Which is also why it's still plausible for Zelda to have these same moves. As I explained, they are spells given to Link by fairies in OoT. Since Zelda is pretty much on the same level as Link in terms of holiness and importance, she could have just as much access to these spells as he does, and they could be handed down from generation to generation through the royal bloodline. Since the spells evoke the powers of the goddesses, who are constant, it's rather logical that they remain the same.

Also, there are Sheikah in TP. Or rather, one. Tiny old woman. In a place that suggests to me that the current Sheikah are not so much ninjas as they are cowboys.

........................ actually, that would be interesting to see.

[Reply to Fawriel]

Why add them up? Link in 64 & Melee are the exact same character, & they're based on the most recent big Zelda game that fits SSB's style. Arguably, OoT doesn't have ANY representation any more, because Link & Zelda (likely Ganondorf too) will be showing off their Twilight Princess attire. So does that mean Twilight Princess has too much representation? I think on the contrary, but unless Shiek is in it, OoT may well have none at all. Besides, evidence points to Shiek being redesigned for Brawl, so would that infact mean that OoT has NO representation anyway?

Why add them up? Because! ... I can't really explain that, I just know that OoT got enough representation about now.
And it's continuing. We know at least that there's an OoT medley, which may or may not be placed in an OoT stage.
Yes, it was a great game. But the series should start moving on. OoT was the ONLY game in a long series to be represented in playable characters in Smash until Brawl, with the half-exception of Young Link who has very slight hints towards Majora's Mask - which is a sequel to OoT.
Notice how the Zelda stages in Melee represented Majora's Mask and Zelda II.

It's not like the game will be completely forgotten. There's the song, there's the spells that were carried over, there's bound to be a few Assist Trophies ( Saria? ).
But by now, there's Twilight Princess, the current BIG, and there's Wind Waker with its extremely successful sequel Phantom Hourglass...

So, yes. It is time to move on.

 

[SuperLink9]

& they are moving on, are they not? We all know that each stage can have (at least?) 4 songs to play on it... so that's even more proof that OoT is being forgotten. All the OoT tunes in one song, means they're leaving a lot of room for other Zelda games, are they not?

& the fact remains, that the Goddess' have as big as role in TP, as Shiekah do, whether they're constant or not. Shiekah are constant too, & even though the Goddess's are constant, who's to say their spells are?

#1 They've ONLY appeared in OoT (one game in a big series, as you keep saying)
#2 Zelda never used them in the game
#3 There's no way of knowing if Zelda really does have them, or if it's just attacks for the sake of attacks
#4 There's far more proof of Zelda changing into Shiek (i.e., it actually happens in the game...) than Zelda using these spells
#5 These spells are for the Hero of Hyrule, not saying it's impossible for Zelda to get them, but you know.

I'm just saying the continuity argument doesn't work here. It can go one way just as it can go the other.

Zelda never uses the spells in TP (or ever)
Zelda never changes into Shiek in TP

The spells are constant, Zelda MIGHT have had them in TP
The Shiekah are constant (+Zelda wore a Shiekah robe in TP) she MGIHT have been able to change into Shiek in TP.

There's absolutely NO WAY to tell if she could or not, that goes the way way for both the spells and Shiek.

& OoT getting too much representation, not really. Zelda II got one song and a stage in Melee, does that mean it has too much representation? What IS there in Brawl apart from that song that gives it representation?

Melee & SSB64 combined have no stage based on OoT, there's never been one, ever. Not to mention the character designs in Melee & SSB64 are meant to represent the most recent big Zelda designs, that would be OoT, would it not? No point modelling them like the 2D game designs, since OoTs designs are "better" anyway.

OoT doesn't have too much representation. The original Metroid has more representation than OoT does, Brinstar & Brinstar Depth/Kraid, are both from Metroid, as are both of the songs for the stages. Does Metroid need to "move on" ?

 

[Eldezar]

A comment made earlier, which I have believed for some time, is that Impa join the game to replace Shiek. The way this works is for one, it allows Zelda to be continuous with the TP timeline, and it helps to keep OoT having a more full representation.

When Zelda rode away from the castle, she was in hiding with Impa, and Impa trained her in the ways of the Shiekah. So, obviously, all of Shiek's moves are ones she had learned form Impa, so Impa could easily replace Shiek and retain her moveset. And to include more representation for the N64 LoZ games, have Young Link included in the game, but change his moves to represent Majora's Mask, where he puts on a different mask with down-B (similar to Pokemon Trainer) and the Fierce Deity mask as his Final Smash.

Impa I believe is far more important than Shiek, because she is the 4th most recurring character in the LoZ series, having been in the first two games, both oracle games and in OoT. It can then be said that she was in the world of MM, though not actually in game, and in a sense in every other Zelda game, but simply as a caretaker/guardian to the family, and not entirely mentioned.

 

[Shadowbolt]

But why the HELL would they make Impa playable? Even while they were displaying OoT characters, she wouldn't gotten in - but NOW we're in TP - neither Impa nor Sheik are anywhere NEAR that game.

And no, actually, TINGLE is the 4th-most reoccurring character.

 

[Eldezar]

Tingle has only been in four games, and they can put her in so as not to make every zelda-oriented character strictly TP, which is exactly what I said, you just failed in your reading test.

 

[Soluble Toast]

Zelda never uses the spells in TP (or ever)
Zelda never changes into Shiek in TP

The spells are constant, Zelda MIGHT have had them in TP
The Sheikah are constant (+Zelda wore a Sheikah robe in TP) she MGIHT have been able to change into Sheik in TP.

To delve deeper into the continuity chunk of this discussion:

Technically , with TP taking place in the child timeline created after OOT's conclusion , Zelda never had the need to become Sheik in the child timeline , as she never went into exile. So it's safe to say Sheik never existed in the timeline in which TP takes place, so Zelda most likely couldn't teach her decendants the ability to morph into a male sheikah, as she herself never learned the ability. Sure , Impa existed, which carries on the loyalty the Sheikah showed to the Royal family of Hyrule. Which explains Zelda's mourning robes. She wore the robes to mourn the loss of her kingdom ( possibly father?). It doesn't really relate to Sheik , more like the closeness of the Royal family/ Impa's Sheikah

Zelda could've possessed those spells. the Sheikah were sent to protect the royal family of Hyrule by the gods , plus the Ooocaa were said to be close to the gods + The royal family. So it isn't unthinkable for the royal family to have some sort of access to the spells named after the goddesses, as the goddesses seem to favor the Royal Family in one way or another. This could be backed up by Zelda obvious gift for magical abilities , but then again this could be in vain , as TP Zelda never truly showed magical abilities ( Except calling upon the light spirits) but I would think anyone could do that (?) , much like a prayer.

Just my 2 cents. I read the whole topic , but it's slightly long, so sorry if I was repeating anyone else =]

 

[Shadowbolt]

Giving a character a move they never had in a game is a LOT different from adding a CHARACTER who was never in said game. There was no Sheik design in TP.

The only way this would be acceptable is if what Zelda did was change into her cloaked form, with her sword or something, and wasn't CALLED Sheik.

The character, specifically named Sheik, was not in TP. Zelda was.

 

[SuperLink9]

Zelda has always had some kind of power for calling the sages/light spirits/whatevs.

Really though, OoT was a huge crisis in Hyrule, just as TP is, Zelda changed into Shiek in OoT because she felt the need to hide. Still, there's no way to say that this technique wasn't already used by the Royal family before OoT? or developed again afterwards? Hyrule has seemed to have a huge bunch of troubles across it's time. Even so, the TP Zelda seems far more fighting apt than even the OoT Zelda. TP Zelda has a sword, & does use some of her magical abilities at the end of the game, so who's to say she didn't develop a Shiekah transformation as a side project, to help her more atheltic fighting skills. I know this is unlikely, but we have no proof suggesting otherwise, as is the same with the Goddess' spells.

But really, to sum up all my points, the Smash Bros series has never really been about continuity, Adult Link using Boomerang, Zelda using the magic (we have no proof she used them in any Zelda game) even Mario using his cape to reflect attacks, not to mention Ness' attacks aren't even all his. So if you ask me, Shiek has as much of a chance returning to SSB as Zelda's never before seen attacks had. Still, I would prefer for Shiek to have a seperate character slot, even to emphasise that they are indeed 2 different Zeldas.

& this is a very sceptical point, but:

If OoT had been first developed on GC with a mature look in mind, who's to say the character designs won't have been Twilight Princess-esque? Take into account what the N64 could handle as far as complex character models go, & the TP designs being quite complicated (I can't see them being used on the N64) they could simply be an update of the OoT character design, sceptically, even a true vision of what OoT may have looked like had it been on a more advanced console.

You never know (I think that phrase itself could sum up the whole thread :D)

 

[Drake3]

If OoT had been first developed on GC with a mature look in mind, who's to say the character designs won't have been Twilight Princess-esque? Take into account what the N64 could handle as far as complex character models go, & the TP designs being quite complicated (I can't see them being used on the N64) they could simply be an update of the OoT character design, sceptically, even a true vision of what OoT may have looked like had it been on a more advanced console.

I know you like to think of it as a graphical update, and that's partly true, but to me it's more of a story being told in a different form of art. Ocarina of Time was kind of bright and jovial while Twilight Princess is darker and takes on a more realistic and gothic edge. I know people like to draw some sort of connection between them because they share "mature" qualities, but I don't think it had anything to do with graphics seeing as how the styles are just completely different. Look at the colours being used and the atmosphere that's created with both. But this afterall is my own perspective and the only one who can answer this is Miyamoto (not that he ever will).

 

[SuperLink9]

I agree, but they're both Zelda in a more mature style, to an extent. OoT (& certainly MM) were quite dark games (MM is possibly the most sinister & dark entry in the series so far)

I'm not really arguing that it IS simply a graphical update, I'm arguing that it could be seen that way by some. Just like Pit got a major makeover for his Brawl appearance, Shiek may well do too (though Pit is the star of his own series, but I won't go into that now)

As far as the Smash Bros series goes though, who's to say it isn't just that? A graphical/design update? Seems perfectly reasonable, Zelda doesn't have those attacks in TP, & she wields a sword too, still no sign of that in Brawl.

 

[EPX2]

Sheik will return for this simple reason:

TP Zelda =/= SSB Zelda. The limitations that are in place for the Zelda from Twilight Princess do not necessarily need to be in place for SSB Zelda. Yes, we need to be realistic: it would be silly to allow Zelda to transform into Godzilla, Michael Jackson, or whatnot. But seeing as how SSB Zelda has already shown that she possesses the ability to transform into Sheik, there's no reason for her to lose that in Brawl just because her appearance (and not necessarily her limitations) has been updated to match that of TP Zelda.

 

[specialsauce]

sheik will be back why would they completley remove one of zeldas movs. so far from vids it seems her moves havent changs that much and are identical to melee. also she wasnt in the demo, this could mean they dont want sheik to be revealed yet. anyways shiek will return i dont have any doubts

 

[SuperLink9]

Well, they wouldn't be removing one of her moves. The entire argument against Shiek is that she takes up space in Zelda's moveset, which some Zelda fans may feel is an injustice. They'd be replacing it with something more Zelda like, & give her a better feel as an independant character, rather than a "vessel" for Shiek

 

[Drake3]

Zelda doesn't have those attacks in TP, & she wields a sword too, still no sign of that in Brawl.

Which I think was such a huge mistake. They gave her the Goddess powers in Melee because she lacked a suitable moveset, and when she finally got something useable from TP, they didn't include it.

 

[ScaryMunky]

A sword for Zelda would be completely retarted anyway, imo. There are enough swordsmen; Zelda needs to stick with magic.

Edit: Although, speaking of that, and in regards to the - "Zelda never used those magic powers in TP" - "well they are constant and always there and she always had access to them blah blah" - in TP she is standing in defense of her throne with a sword. You'd think if she WAS able to use the magic of the Goddess', she would blast those guys to hell, no?

 

[The rAt]

This is one heck of a topic to try and keep up with. Everyone writes long friggin posts. Which is good, because they're mostly well written. I'm just too ADD to read all of them. I'm just going to respond to a few things which caught my eye. And possibly rant a little. It wouldn't be me if I didn't rant at least a little.

& they are moving on, are they not? We all know that each stage can have (at least?) 4 songs to play on it... so that's even more proof that OoT is being forgotten. All the OoT tunes in one song, means they're leaving a lot of room for other Zelda games, are they not?

Why does OoT warrant more representation than any other Zelda game? The only reason it recieved so much attention in the last game was that it was the most recent origin story. The truth is we've all been OoT spoiled, and to quote Fawriel, "It is time to move on." In a lot of ways, that's what keeping Zelda true to the Twilight Princess character is all about; moving on. She's a good enough character that she doesn't need to be watered down with elements of a different game.

& the fact remains, that the Goddess' have as big as role in TP, as Shiekah do, whether they're constant or not. Shiekah are constant too, & even though the Goddess's are constant, who's to say their spells are?

#1 They've ONLY appeared in OoT (one game in a big series, as you keep saying)
#2 Zelda never used them in the game
#3 There's no way of knowing if Zelda really does have them, or if it's just attacks for the sake of attacks
#4 There's far more proof of Zelda changing into Shiek (i.e., it actually happens in the game...) than Zelda using these spells
#5 These spells are for the Hero of Hyrule, not saying it's impossible for Zelda to get them, but you know.

I'm just saying the continuity argument doesn't work here. It can go one way just as it can go the other.

Zelda never uses the spells in TP (or ever)
Zelda never changes into Shiek in TP

The spells are constant, Zelda MIGHT have had them in TP
The Shiekah are constant (+Zelda wore a Shiekah robe in TP) she MGIHT have been able to change into Shiek in TP.

There's absolutely NO WAY to tell if she could or not, that goes the way way for both the spells and Shiek.

Precisely how are the Sheikah constant? I mean, I know their symbol is constant, but they themselves have not been mentioned since OoT. For all we know, they died out with Impa, and their symbols survived as a vestige of their culture. But assuming they ARE still around, that has no bearing on the relevance of Sheik. After all, Sheik is not a Sheikah. Sheik is a Hylian disguised as a Sheikah. And I have no doubt that Twilight Princess Zelda could have dressed herself up like a Sheikah. But considering she wasn't raised by a Sheikah, and she wasn't hunted her entire life by Gannondorf, her choosing to dress up like a Sheikah makes about as much sense as her choosing to dress up like a Gerudo or wearing the Bunny Hood around Hyrule Castle.

Let me say this clearly; the Sheik disguise existed for the sole purpose of escaping being hunted by Gannondorf when fleeing Hyrule Castle after it was attacked by Gannondorf. It wasn't a fashion statement. It wasn't a ninja-powersuit with alternate abilities. OoT Zelda played ninja because she was taught to do so by Impa, who was obviously not around to teach TP Zelda to do so. Dressing up like a Sheikah didn't allow her to accomplish anything that she couldn't normally do, except not ge noticed by Gannondorf, something that was not an issue for Twilight Princess.

& OoT getting too much representation, not really. Zelda II got one song and a stage in Melee, does that mean it has too much representation? What IS there in Brawl apart from that song that gives it representation?

Melee & SSB64 combined have no stage based on OoT, there's never been one, ever. Not to mention the character designs in Melee & SSB64 are meant to represent the most recent big Zelda designs, that would be OoT, would it not? No point modelling them like the 2D game designs, since OoTs designs are "better" anyway.

OoT doesn't have too much representation. The original Metroid has more representation than OoT does, Brinstar & Brinstar Depth/Kraid, are both from Metroid, as are both of the songs for the stages. Does Metroid need to "move on" ?

Again, wrong. First of all, the Temple stage (which I assume you are refering to) isn't based on any particular Zelda game. Second, the Hyrule Castle stage in SSB64 is based off of Hyrule Castle as it appeared in OoT, a design I which has never been associated with any other Zelda game.
You said it yourself, Melee and SSB64 were meant to represent the most recent big Zelda designs. So Brawl isn't? I mean, Twilight Princess designs are "better" than OoT designs, so why would we need ANY representation from OoT? It isn't as though we see Aghanim from LttP or that crazy blob thing from LA, do we? Smash Bros is known for highlighting the most recent entries in a series, not making certain to throw something in from every game in every series.
Finally, all of the elements you've just highlighted about the Metroid series have appeared in at least two sepparate Metroid games. If they drop the Zero Suit Samus in the series, you can bet we'll be having the same discussion about her, come Super Smash Bros. 4.

A comment made earlier, which I have believed for some time, is that Impa join the game to replace Shiek. The way this works is for one, it allows Zelda to be continuous with the TP timeline, and it helps to keep OoT having a more full representation.

When Zelda rode away from the castle, she was in hiding with Impa, and Impa trained her in the ways of the Shiekah. So, obviously, all of Shiek's moves are ones she had learned form Impa, so Impa could easily replace Shiek and retain her moveset. And to include more representation for the N64 LoZ games, have Young Link included in the game, but change his moves to represent Majora's Mask, where he puts on a different mask with down-B (similar to Pokemon Trainer) and the Fierce Deity mask as his Final Smash.

Impa I believe is far more important than Shiek, because she is the 4th most recurring character in the LoZ series, having been in the first two games, both oracle games and in OoT. It can then be said that she was in the world of MM, though not actually in game, and in a sense in every other Zelda game, but simply as a caretaker/guardian to the family, and not entirely mentioned.

You just stole my idea from a few posts back and claimed it as your own, you cretin! Just kidding, I'm sure you came up with it all by yourself and just didn't notice that I suggested it as well. It certainly makes a lot more sense than tossing Sheik in, that's for ****ed certain.

To delve deeper into the continuity chunk of this discussion:

Technically , with TP taking place in the child timeline created after OOT's conclusion , Zelda never had the need to become Sheik in the child timeline , as she never went into exile. So it's safe to say Sheik never existed in the timeline in which TP takes place, so Zelda most likely couldn't teach her decendants the ability to morph into a male sheikah, as she herself never learned the ability. Sure , Impa existed, which carries on the loyalty the Sheikah showed to the Royal family of Hyrule. Which explains Zelda's mourning robes. She wore the robes to mourn the loss of her kingdom ( possibly father?). It doesn't really relate to Sheik , more like the closeness of the Royal family/ Impa's Sheikah

Zelda could've possessed those spells. the Sheikah were sent to protect the royal family of Hyrule by the gods , plus the Ooocaa were said to be close to the gods + The royal family. So it isn't unthinkable for the royal family to have some sort of access to the spells named after the goddesses, as the goddesses seem to favor the Royal Family in one way or another. This could be backed up by Zelda obvious gift for magical abilities , but then again this could be in vain , as TP Zelda never truly showed magical abilities ( Except calling upon the light spirits) but I would think anyone could do that (?) , much like a prayer.

Just my 2 cents. I read the whole topic , but it's slightly long, so sorry if I was repeating anyone else =]

You would have been right at home in the Zelda Timeline debate topic from awhile back. That's one of the ideas we discussed. Unfortunately, it's marred by the fact that Link did things in the past which affected the future (planting seeds, ect.). There are problems with a single timeline theory, too, though. Like how the **** G.Dorf got ahold of the Triforce if Link went back to the same moment he took the Master Sword. Although TP certainly SUGGESTS a dual timeline theory (having an alternate way of explaining G.Dorf having Triforce, ect.)
Anyhow, the short end of it is that there is more than one take on the whole timeline issue. Maybe I'll try and resurrect the topic so it can be once again debated until we're all blue in the face.
On a side note, there is nothing in any Zelda game, any official Nintendo Press release, or anything other than fan fiction to suggest that Zelda actually transformes into a male. She's merely disguised as one.

Zelda has always had some kind of power for calling the sages/light spirits/whatevs.

Really though, OoT was a huge crisis in Hyrule, just as TP is, Zelda changed into Shiek in OoT because she felt the need to hide. Still, there's no way to say that this technique wasn't already used by the Royal family before OoT? or developed again afterwards? Hyrule has seemed to have a huge bunch of troubles across it's time. Even so, the TP Zelda seems far more fighting apt than even the OoT Zelda. TP Zelda has a sword, & does use some of her magical abilities at the end of the game, so who's to say she didn't develop a Shiekah transformation as a side project, to help her more atheltic fighting skills. I know this is unlikely, but we have no proof suggesting otherwise, as is the same with the Goddess' spells.

See earlier section of post where I mention that magically changing her clothes to fit those of a dead race doesn't really offer an practical advantages or abilities she doesn't already possess.

But really, to sum up all my points, the Smash Bros series has never really been about continuity, Adult Link using Boomerang, Zelda using the magic (we have no proof she used them in any Zelda game) even Mario using his cape to reflect attacks, not to mention Ness' attacks aren't even all his. So if you ask me, Shiek has as much of a chance returning to SSB as Zelda's never before seen attacks had. Still, I would prefer for Shiek to have a seperate character slot, even to emphasise that they are indeed 2 different Zeldas.

If Smash Bros. wasn't at all about continuity, then we'd see Link with the Fire Wand or the Cane of Somaria. Smash Bros. doesn't break the rules, it bends them. Giving Link a weapon he traditionally used as a child would be bending the rules. Having Zelda dress up like her ancestor and fighting like a ninja would be breaking the rules. It would make as much sense as the example of her changing into Tetra. Or Wolf-Link.
I can certainly get with you on that last sentence, though.

& this is a very sceptical point, but:

If OoT had been first developed on GC with a mature look in mind, who's to say the character designs won't have been Twilight Princess-esque? Take into account what the N64 could handle as far as complex character models go, & the TP designs being quite complicated (I can't see them being used on the N64) they could simply be an update of the OoT character design, sceptically, even a true vision of what OoT may have looked like had it been on a more advanced console.

You never know (I think that phrase itself could sum up the whole thread :D)

OoT Link and Zelda have already appeared on a Gamecube console. In Melee. As you can see, they are updated, and look very little like Twilight Princess incarnations. Seeing as how Twilight Princess was on the Gamecube as well, I'd say graphical capability has diddly squat to do with anything.

The plain truth of the matter is the only reason this discussion exists is that Twilight Princess has a similar graphical style to OoT. If Zelda were her Wind Waker version, no one would be clambouring for Sheik's return. So the real reason people want Sheik to be a part of Twilight Princess Zelda is purely because they associate Sheik with realistic Zelda, not because her inclusion would make any sense whatsoever. Honsetly, that's the part that annoys me most.

Anyhow, there was a more, but it took me too long to write this, so I'm moving on to other topics. G'day, all.

 

[Eldezar]

You just stole my idea from a few posts back and claimed it as your own, you cretin! Just kidding, I'm sure you came up with it all by yourself and just didn't notice that I suggested it as well. It certainly makes a lot more sense than tossing Sheik in, that's for ****ed certain.

I have wanted MM Young Link and Impa rather than Shiek for some time. I did read your post about these options as well, but no one seemed to give them credit, I brought them up again. Sorry for not giving you credit in it, but definitely love how you say all the things I want to say but I am just too **** lazy to say them.

 

[The rAt]

I have wanted MM Young Link and Impa rather than Shiek for some time. I did read your post about these options as well, but no one seemed to give them credit, I brought them up again. Sorry for not giving you credit in it, but definitely love how you say all the things I want to say but I am just too **** lazy to say them.

No worries about giving me credit. That's the thing about forums, no matter what you think up, usually someone else has talked about it first. And I can relate about letting other folks talk for you; that's why I've been on this forum for like five years and this is only my 500th post.

Incidentally, 500th post. Woot, ect.