Talk:The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords/Argument about the name of this article

This is not a game.

It is a subgame, a part of the A Link to the Past port. If we were to hold that even subgames warranted articles, Hyrule Battle and Tetra's Trackers would be their own games. If no one objects, I will redirect this article to A Link to the Past sometime tomorrow. If you wish to make an article on the port, do so, but not a subgame of the port. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Four Swords is essentially a separate game, not some sort of minigame. it would be out of place on the Link to the Past article as it wasnt included with the best known version. i do oppose the recent changes to this page though. There is no reason to have significant info abotu a Link to the Past on the page as that game has its own page. Information abotu ports should go there. There was an article just about the four swords games. I'll do a big revert if no one objects. Ace of Sevens 03:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do object to a "big revert". This article is about both LTTP and Four Swords. That's why the title is "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords". The LTTP section only includes a short bit of what is an ENORMOUS LTTP article, as is per Wikipedia guidelines, several paragraphs. Also, it is quite valid, as per the manual of style [[1]] Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I took another look and don't have a problem with the article format so much, but I am going to restore cateogries which are specifically related to Four Swords. Someone moved those cateogries to the Four Swords redirect. Ace of Sevens 07:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Four Swords is a multiplayer mode. Why should it be considered a separate game when each of the "eight games in one" in Kirby Super Star are not? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a multiplayer mode, but it's sort of more fleshed out than those other games. I suppose you could make individual articles for each of those 8 games and I invite you to try if you really want to. However, it wouldn't make much sense because there isn't enough information to collect into an article. Four Swords on the other hand not only has proved that it has enough info for an article but Nintendo has spawned spiritual "sequels" to it in Four Swords Adventures and Minish Cap. Axem Titanium 21:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Having sequels based on you does not make you a game. Four Swords is a subgame of a bigger game, not the dominant portion of the game - their primary marketing strategy was "buy A Link to the Past on GBA! Oh, and it has a multiplayer mode.", not "get this great new multiplayer game on GBA! Comes with port of A Link to the Past." - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

They didn't call it a "multiplayer mode", A Link to the Past. In huge writing on the box, they called it a "New Multiplayer Adventure- Four Swords". It's its own specific game, with its own title screen and everything. You buy the cartridge for LTTP, but you get an extra game free, which is Four Swords. Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You get an extra mode. It's advertised as a subgame. Do you see some huge logo saying Four Swords? Nope! You know what you see? A small note saying that LttP includes a multiplayer adventure. Being an adventure does not make it a game. Are you saying that a multiplayer mode cannot be an adventure?

And each "game" in Kirby Super Star has its own menu, does that make each of them a real game that is worthy of an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Give us your proof that it's advertised as a subgame. Nintendo's own literature has it clearly shown otherwise. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I dunno, maybe the fact that the feature of the game is A Link to the Past, and that Four Swords could pretty much be summed up as a bullet point on the boxart? You've not actually given a good argument as to why multiplayer adventure makes it a game, as if it can not not be a game if it's an adventure as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, you have no proof at all. Four Swords IS a game, it has its own title screen (no less than twice), Nintendo NEVER calls it a "subgame", heck, the game even has its own official Nintendo website [2]. And Nintendo themselves? This is what they have to say about it- "A Link to the Past is on the same Game Pak as Four Swords".

As in- A Link to the Past is a game that happens to be on the game cartridge as the seperate game Four Swords.

As in- Four Swords is its OWN GAME, NOT A SUBGAME MODE OF ANYTHING. It doesn't play anything like LTTP, it doesn't share music, storyline or graphics. It is an entirely seperate game within the same cartridge. I rest my case. If you want to argue this further, find someone else to do it with. Ex-Nintendo Employee 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot. Only I must provide proof. God forbid that you show a single precedence on Wikipedia where, outside of collections, multiple games in one package are given multiple articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If this were the only way it was ever released, I'd agree with you, but since A Link to the Past (unlike the Kirby games) was also sold separately, this is essentially is a collection. Ace of Sevens 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me where it was sold separately. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, on the SNES? Ace of Sevens 22:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

...I was talking about Four Swords. This is not a collection. Four Swords did not exist before this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Will you at least take NINTENDO'S own word for it and end this ridiculous persistance? Nintendo themselves calls it, specifically, "Two Legendary Games On One Game Pak". [3] That's directly from Nintendo.com itself, verbatim and straight to the point. Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that a game that is lesser than another game cannot be a game? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously, Four Swords isn't lesser than any other Zelda game according to Nintendo. And since Four Swords isn't lesser, it can have its own article. Do you have something against Four Swords having its own article for some reason that seems to overpower all this discussion (with sources) going completely against you? Axem Titanium 02:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know the fact that Nintendo calls it a game underminds the fact that there is not a game called Four Swords, but rather, A Link to the Past / Four Swords! - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. It's a SINGLE CARTRIDGE COMPLIATION titled "Legend of Zelda/Four Swords" that contains TWO GAMES, one called "Link to the Past" (which is a port of the SNES game) and one called "Four Swords". It's the same way that the Duck Hunt/ Super Mario Bros. cartridge is a compliation of DH/SMB and contains two seperate individual games. Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A game created as a multiplayer adventure with another game as a port is the same as two games which existed already, which were repackaged in one cartridge in NES bundles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has to be called A Link to the Past/Four Swords in order to tell the user that this cartridge, in fact, contains two games. Otherwise, no one would know and then maybe it would be considered a "subgame". But as it stands, it is a different game that is clearly advertised on the boxart. And I have no clue what you're trying to say with that last sentence. Something about NES bundles which don't exist because neither game has anything to do with the NES? Axem Titanium 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I dare you to tell me that Four Swords is equal in ALttP in this "collection". How equal is a game when one of the games is the title and the other is a note of its existence?

Um, yeah, YOU kind of mentioned NES games, and I kind of pointed out how one previously existing game + one new game made as a subgame to that game is nothing like two previously existing games being repackaged as a collection to be bundled with the NES. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Axem, don't waste your time. This guy isn't interested in coming to a conclusion, all he wants is to "have the last word". It's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about and is just trying to "shift" the discussion. All he's going to do is keep going around and around in circles until you finally get so sick of him that you leave in disgust, with no actual resolution to the discussion forthcoming. The discussion ended a long time ago- A Link to the Past (talk) isn't worth bothering over. Ex-Nintendo Employee 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So are we (except User:A Link to the Past) agreed that this article shoudl be Four Swords and include a note that it was packaged with the Game Boy AAdvance version of [[[A Link to the Past]] and cover said port on that page? Ace of Sevens 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ex-Nintendo Employee 05:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So you also agree that Nintendo is wrong? By including ALttP as a note somewhere in the article and Four Swords as the main game, you're contradicting that A Link to the Past is the main game and Four Swords is a lesser game in the package. Nintendo did not make this with the intention of people buying it as a new multiplayer Zelda, they made it as an LttP port WITH a multiplayer Zelda as a bonus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a claim that Four Swords is the main game, just that we already have an article for A Link to the Past, so we don't need a seconf one about the port. See Half-Life: Decay for precedent. This was a new multiplayer co-op game added ot the PlayStation 2 port of Half-Life. THe port was covered on the Half-Life page and the new segment given its own page. Anyway, it's clear that no one agrees with you on this point, so you might as well let it drop. Ace of Sevens 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's three against one. (Man, I LOVE democracy.) Axem Titanium 05:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice job vandalizing my message on the text page. By the way, yes, it is original research to point out how Nintendo, when advertising the game, said "hey, look, A Link to the Past! Oh, and Four Swords." In the commercials and on the box, A Link to the Past was the main game. This port adds a new dungeon, a new item, a new side quest and a new sword technique. It wasn't simply a port.

With the exception of the NES classics series, all of Nintendo's Game Boy ports are enhanced. For the most part, we don't give them new pages. This doesn't address Four Swords one way or the other, though. Ace of Sevens 09:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario Advance 4 has a page. Should we change it to only mention the e-Worlds and various other e-Cards? Super Mario Advance has no page, because it's simply a port with little difference. A Link to the Past has new content that shouldn't be mentioned on the main A Link to the Past page. Four Swords should be counted with A Link to the Past. Nintendo marketed this as A Link to the Past and Four Swords as a multiplayer adventure.