Smertios's Timeline

[Smertios]

I am used to theorize about Zelda at ZU, but, today, I decided to start going to other Zelda communities too.

But before I start discussing the timeline and other zelda theories with you ZD veterans, I think I should first post my timeline here.

...../-TWW/PH-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA-LoZ/AoL
OoT
.....\MM-TP

Considering the few timeline theories I saw in this forum already, I assume that, at first, this timeline probably sounds impossible. Mainly because most people consider TMC to be the first game in the timeline. And, at least here, you guys believe that the 2D games come in the Young Timeline. So i better explain things first.

At ZU, the most common timelines include the following:
...../-TWW/PH-FS/FSA-LttP/LA
OoT
.....\MM-TP

There are many debates on TMC, LoZ/AoL and OoX placements, but that part seems to be a consensus there. The main reason for that is a quote by the Deku Tree in TWW, in which he (it?) states that trees have the power to bring more land to the surfice, thus creating more landmass. As I see it, this is evidence that the land can grow after TWW/PH. One of the main reasons why people place the 2D games in the YT is that, as Hyrule is shown as a vast land in them, they can't come after TWW. That quote from TWW seems to be why this statement is not true. I posted a geography thread at ZU that, hopefully, I am going to copy here too, with all possible comparisons. But the main idea to why the AT should go like TWW/PH-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP-LoZ/AoL, having that quote from the Deku Tree into consideration, is that the land should be growing after TWW.

If we take a look at FSA map (the last paragraph was becoming too big :P), we will notice that it is pretty much identical to LttP map (except for a few details), but there is one major difference: in FSA, Hyrule is on an island and, in LttP, it is a landlocked nation. This is what makes me believe that FSA-LttP is an arch that should follow TWW. It is a perfect match to the quote from TWW.

Another interesting thing to point out is the connection between LttP and the FS subseries. I believe it is common sense that the Adult part of OoT was supposed to be the Imprisoning War mentioned in LttP backstory. But, since TWW, it is not clear when exactly Ganon was sealed in the Sacred Realm after the game. IMO, that was solved when FS and FSA came out. In the end of FSA, Ganon is sealed into the Four Sword, which seems not to match LttP backstory, when Ganon is sealed in the DW. But, in the GBA version of LttP (the one that came together with FS), you can notice that the Four Sword is actually located in a dungeon in the DW. And it is broken! This is what led us to assume that Ganon was sealed into the 4S in FSA and then, the 4S was sent to the SR for LttP.

Now, with this said, I believe I have explained why it should go TWW/PH---FS/FSA-LttP and TMC---FS/FSA-LttP. Now, there is a reason why I believe TMC is not the first game in the timeline. Basically, in the Palace of Winds (from TMC, of course), you can notice the world below the dungeon.
This pic shows it:
http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp345/Lord_Insizor/minishcaphyruleasisland.png

So, considering the PoW is supposed to be over Hyrule in the game, we believe that the island seen from there is actually Hyrule. This would put TMC in-between TWW and FSA. By those lines, we'd have Hyrule as a bunch of small islands in TWW; as one larger island in TMC; as a small continent in FSA; and as a lanlocked country in LttP. So, by this line, the land would be growing, as the Deku Tree predicted.

Now we are at
OoT-TWW/PH-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA
I believe that LA position is pretty much obvious, considering the manual claims for it to be a LttP sequel.

Now, to explain the position of OoX, I have to use the assumption that, as FSA shows the first time when the trident was used by Ganon, all games in which he has the trident should come after it (notice that ganon does not have the trident in OoT, TWW or TP). Considering Ganon has to be dead prior to OoX, I believe that it should go after LttP (the only time we see Ganon dead so far).

For the LoZ/AoL segment, i have to go back to geography. In ZU, there are two placements to that arch being discussed. Some people believe it should go between TWW and TMC. Others (like me) believe it should go after LttP. The reason for that is that, if we are still going by the 'land getting bigger' quote from TWW, AoL can't possibly come before TMC. The AoL map shows Hyrule as a large, bicontinental empire, composed of many towns. In TMC, we see Hyrule as a tiny island with only one human settlement.

Also, you will notice that the state of the triforce works in my timeline pretty nicely. It is fully recovered after LttP, it is shown in the castle in OoX and is there for the AoL and LoZ backstories (the king hiding the ToC, Ganon stealing the ToP and Zelda spliting the ToW).

This is it I think. Any questions or criticism would be appreciated :)

Thank you for reading...

[Skull_Kid]

Before anything else, I am totally against FSA/ALttP being on the adult timeline!

Also, it has been stated by Myiamoto that MC and FS come before OoT, so why are you guys still trying to contradict the guy who created them all?

[Smertios]

Before anything else, I am totally against FSA/ALttP being on the adult timeline!

In my view, there are two problems with FSA-LttP coming in the YT. The frst one is the imprisoning war. If the adult part of OoT was meant to be the IW, LttP has to follow.

The second is the presence of an ocean in FSA. That is clearly intended to show a post-flood placement of that game.


Also, it has been stated by Myiamoto that MC and FS come before OoT, so why are you guys still trying to contradict the guy who created them all?

I'm aware of that. But, if you notice well, it wasn't Miyamoto who said that FS comes first, it was Aonuma. And later, in another interview, he claimed to having been wrong about that, because he hadn't worked in FS at all.

I can get those texts as soon as I can contact my source again...
Or maybe even less if I can find the scripts from the interview online...

[Skull_Kid]

In my view, there are two problems with FSA-LttP coming in the YT. The frst one is the imprisoning war. If the adult part of OoT was meant to be the IW, LttP has to follow.

The second is the presence of an ocean in FSA. That is clearly intended to show a post-flood placement of that game.



I'm aware of that. But, if you notice well, it wasn't Miyamoto who said that FS comes first, it was Aonuma. And later, in another interview, he claimed to having been wrong about that, because he hadn't worked in FS at all.

I can get those texts as soon as I can contact my source again...
Or maybe even less if I can find the scripts from the interview online...


Anyways, Aonouma is Shigeru's right hand man, so... i think it is play wrong to contradict the creators

[Smertios]

Anyways, Aonouma is Shigeru's right hand man, so... i think it is play wrong to contradict the creators

I know that. The problem is that he later said he was wrong in a different interview. At first I had TMC first too, but, after I saw that interview, i changed my timeline.

And he never said that FS was supposed to come before OoT. He only referred to FS as "the oldest tale". And, in the most recent interview, he also stated that there isn't a timeline yet, but he is working on it.

Now, if I may ask, why are you against FSA and lttP coming in the AT?

[Skull_Kid]

Because, and this is a "touché" to your PoW thingie, if you track the master sword from OoT through TP and finally ALttP, you'll understand... Not to mention that the Master Sword ended in the bottom of the Ocean in WW

[Smertios]

Because, and this is a "touché" to your PoW thingie, if you track the master sword from OoT through TP and finally ALttP, you'll understand... Not to mention that the Master Sword ended in the bottom of the Ocean in WW

Well, Aonuma also stated that the sole fact to why the sword was in the woods in TP was because he wanted to add some sort of easter egg from LttP, which was his favorite game.

And yes, the MS ended in the bottom of the ocean in TWW, but, in OoX, it was said to have been retrieved by a Zora from the sea. This means that the sword can be retrieved from there. Actually, it is why many people place Oox between TWW and LttP...

[Skull_Kid]

Well, Aonuma also stated that the sole fact to why the sword was in the woods in TP was because he wanted to add some sort of easter egg from LttP, which was his favorite game.

And yes, the MS ended in the bottom of the ocean in TWW, but, in OoX, it was said to have been retrieved by a Zora from the sea. This means that the sword can be retrieved from there. Actually, it is why many people place Oox between TWW and LttP...

That's true, mentioning the easter egg, but it can create somekind of timeline link between the 3 games... also, i don't remember that quote from the Zora... Are you perhaps talking about the old one?He gives you the broken Noble Sword(well, he gives you both, depending, but canonical it gives you the Noble one)

[Smertios]

That's true, mentioning the easter egg, but it can create somekind of timeline link between the 3 games...

This is true. But there is still the problem of the Imprisoning War that ties LttP to the AT.


also, i don't remember that quote from the Zora... Are you perhaps talking about the old one?He gives you the broken Noble Sword(well, he gives you both, depending, but canonical it gives you the Noble one)

To be honest, i never really got the MS in any of the oracle games. I always finish the games (including the linked ending) with the noble sword. Anyway, apparently, there are four ways to getting the MS in the oracles. One of them is with the old Zora, who says he retrieved it from the sea...

[Midna666]

The Imprisoning war and ALTTP can't take place in the Adult Timeline.
ALTTP would have to take place after WW in a new Hyrule where they would have to be up on there history of the old Hyrule's legands.
Lgands and history that the Great Flood would have wiped out.

[Smertios]

The Imprisoning war and ALTTP can't take place in the Adult Timeline.
ALTTP would have to take place after WW in a new Hyrule where they would have to be up on there history of the old Hyrule's legands.
Lgands and history that the Great Flood would have wiped out.

Well, Miyamoto himself stated that OoT is the imprisoning war, so I guess you are wrong.

Also, what evidence do you have that the flood wiped out all legends of old Hyrule?

[Midna666]

Well, Miyamoto himself stated that OoT is the imprisoning war, so I guess you are wrong.

Also, what evidence do you have that the flood wiped out all legends of old Hyrule?

Miyamoto said that way before Wind Waker came out.
The evidence is everywhere in WW.
Hyrule is a forgotten kingdom in WW,in fact no one even speaks the language.

[Zemen]

youre using the fact that there is water in FSA as a reason of where your putting it. i think that using geogrpahy is a terrible way to come up with a timeline. you say that ALTTP is just completely land with no water around it. if this is the case then why would LoZ be after ALTTP? LoZ has a coast, so this destroys that idea. youre basing your ENTIRE timeline on ONE quote in the series. when the deku tree says that, he is referring to you going around and watering all the trees but that is just a SIDE QUEST. if it had more significance to it like you think it does then it would have been much more focused on in the game.

i also dont remember any interviews where Miyamoto said there is no timeline. as far as im concerned, ever since OoT there has been a CONFIRMED timeline which means there is one. Miyamoto has said he has files on his computers that relates each game to the other ones. you even said yourself that he called FS "the oldest tale" that means that literally means it would be the first game in the timeline (until MC comes along which is an obvious prequel to FS).

no offense but you have contradicted yourself a couple times while trying to argue your point. im with skull kid on this one.

another thing i thought of is that a good reason why most games are on the child timeline is beacuse of technology. it only makes sense.

WW and PH have the most technology so why would all of the games that are much more ancient-like take place after the two most technologically advanced games? that would make no sense. unless there were some catastrophic events that caused technology to revert to a more primal state (which is never explained in any game), there is no reason that the games that obviously take place in an earlier time period should go after the games with the most technology.

[Smertios]

Miyamoto said that way before Wind Waker came out.

The evidence is everywhere in WW.

Hyrule is a forgotten kingdom in WW,in fact no one even speaks the language.

That's purely speculative though. The book of Mudora was there to tell the story...


youre using the fact that there is water in FSA as a reason of where your putting it. i think that using geogrpahy is a terrible way to come up with a timeline.

If it wasn't for that one quote from the Great deku Tree, i'd agree with you here.


you say that ALTTP is just completely land with no water around it.

Never said that. I only said that, in LttP, Hyrule is a landlocked country. If there is water somewhere other than in hyrule border, we don't know.


if this is the case then why would LoZ be after ALTTP? LoZ has a coast, so this destroys that idea.

Again, re-read what i posted.


youre basing your ENTIRE timeline on ONE quote in the series.

Not really. That quote is just one of the things supporting my views. Miyamoto confirmed that OoT was the imprisoning war. That means that LttP has to come in the AT. And I used the connections between LttP and FS/FSA to prove why the FS subseries should come in the AT too.

That quote just served to order the games...


when the deku tree says that, he is referring to you going around and watering all the trees but that is just a SIDE QUEST. if it had more significance to it like you think it does then it would have been much more focused on in the game.

Another thing that Miyamoto said is that the devs put gameplay first, and the timeline last. this is why your point here is not valid.


i also dont remember any interviews where Miyamoto said there is no timeline.

Me neither. Mainly because it was Aonuma (and not Miyamoto) who did that in the interview for Nintendo Power of 2007...


as far as im concerned, ever since OoT there has been a CONFIRMED timeline which means there is one.

Aonuma recently acknowledged that he still has no timeline ;)


Miyamoto has said he has files on his computers that relates each game to the other ones.

I have no reason to believe that is not correct. But, as far as miyamoto is involved, it only relates to the games he created. After Aonuma took his place, we don't know if the document still exists. aonuma even confirmed that he is still "working on a timeline", on his own words.


you even said yourself that he called FS "the oldest tale" that means that literally means it would be the first game in the timeline (until MC comes along which is an obvious prequel to FS).

It was aonuma who said that, not Miyamoto. Later (Nintendo Power interview, 2003; if i'm not mistaken - i'll check), he confirmed that he said that, but that he hadn't worked on FS, so he was not a reliable source about its storyline. And later he even said he is still working on a timeline...


no offense but you have contradicted yourself a couple times while trying to argue your point. im with skull kid on this one.

Show me exactly one time I contradicted myself and I can agree with you. for now I'll be going that you didn't understand what I said with LttP being a landlocked country. Remember that Bolivia is also a landlocked country, which doesn't mean there is no ocean in South America ;)


another thing i thought of is that a good reason why most games are on the child timeline is beacuse of technology. it only makes sense.

Again, gameplay comes first, timeline comes last during development.

I can think of at least one time in the Real World when technology seemed to devolve: the Dark Ages...

It's nice to theorize in a place where people actually disagree with most of what you say :D

[Midna666]

In TP you find the Master Sword in the woods.
In ALTTP you find the Master Sword in the woods,which tells me that ALTTP takes place on the same timeline.

[sign of table]

I won't deny that tMC can begin the timeline. I think it fits better elsewhere. But it 'can' begin the timeline. Saying that it should go tMC-FS-OoT because of an interview is bad. The manual of FSA confirms FS/FSA. With FS Link being the same Link as FSA Link.

Who here can see the huge fail in FSA-OoT?

About the MS. In OoX there are 4 ways that I know of to get the MS. 1) Get the Noble Sword from the Lost woods. Trade passwords from OoA and Farore makes it into the MS. 2) Get the broken Noble Sword from the Zora. Have it fixed. Then trade passwords from OoS to get the MS. 3) Trade passwords from OoS and get the Noble Sword. Get the broken MS from the Zora. Fix it and you have the MS. That fits for post-tWW. 4) Trade passwords from OoA and get the Noble Sword from Farore. Go to the lost woods and get the MS.

Now if you believe TP-LttP for the MS placement then you have to believe TP-LttP-OoS because of the MS placement.

Here is the problem with LttP-OoS/OoA. In the japanese translations of OoX Ganon is referred to as Daimaou by both Onox(Gorgon in the japanese) and Twinrova. When Ganon is resurrected he claims to be the Maou of Darkness. Ou means king. And Ma means great. So the title is Great King of Darkness. Or Yami no Maou. Twinrova says that she is putting the spirit in the "Yorishiro". A Yorishiro is an object that holds a soul (Or something like that). Now think for a second that the Yorishiro is the trident.

Now onward to FSA. In the FSA translation by Prime Blue when Ganon gets the trident he turns into the Yami no Maou. In the japanese text the trident is implied to be a vessel. Now imagine OoX-FSA.

Ganon gets put into the trident and gets killed by Link. The trident is later picked up by Ganondorf of FSA. The trident turns Ganondorf into the Yami no Maou. Fits perfectly, doesn't it?

In LttP in the palace of the Four Sword you can actually find the broken FS on the ground. This obviously hints for FSA-LttP.

If you're wondering where I got the translations. I got them on the LA forums. (LegendsAlliance)

The SW can only be OoT. When in the CT does the thief Ganondorf touch the triforce and become a J(y)aaku no Ou? (J(y)aaku no Ou means King of Evil in japanese)

Now me and Smertios disagree on the timeline. I believe that the amount of enemies and the boat in OoX that match up with LA mean that it should go OoX-LA. For right now my timeline is:
-----tWW/PH-OoX/LA-tMC-FS/FSA-LttP
----/
OoT
----\
-----MM-TP

With my position of LoZ/AoL unknown. Leaning towards after LttP

Now I want to say something else. In Freshly Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland there are these things called Salona. They look identical to the Subrosians. At one point they say that they helped a hero defeat a demon. Hmm sound like OoS at all? TRR takes place in a completely flooded hyrule.

Now I'm sure you are going to question the canonicity (god I hope that is a real word) of TRR. In the game it gives an explanation for how the Tingle's are created. It explains why they need money. And it is a nintendo approved game.

There is less water in the present of OoA than the past. The islands around it have actually moved closer. Sound like the GDTs plan?

Oh and you say that the DTs plan thing isn't canon because it is a sidequest? So you're also saying that the Fierce Deity mask really didn't exist?

Since the MS matter so much I'm going to respond to Midna666's post.

In the GBA version of LttP you can find the broken FS in the palace of the FS.
In FSA you seal Ganon in the FS. Oh and the backstories fit each other and the geography is damn near identical. Oh and both Ganon's are called Yami no Maou. A title that no other Ganon except OoX Ganon has.

[Welbanks]

The manual of FSA confirms FS/FSA. With FS Link being the same Link as FSA Link.

No, it dosent, it simply implies that FSA comes sometime after FS, not directly after.

[sign of table]

Tell me one time in the series where it says Link and it doesn't refer to the current Link.

[Zemen]

Tell me one time in the series where it says Link and it doesn't refer to the current Link.

tell me one place where it DOES.

i just got done reading the back story for FSA and there is honestly no evidence to support it being the same link. it just makes it obvious that it comes after FSA which any idiot could figure out, it just never tells us how long after FSA. you said earlier that its bad to place a game on the timeline because of an interview. youre basically telling us to trust you, a fanboy, over the people interviewed, the creators. i would never do that unless they straight up said "we are wrong about what we said. this is thre truth." but i have never seen/read/heard any quotes like that and the only person i have ever seen say that the creators said there is no timeline is you, so im not gonna take your word for it.

the argument stands that you believe that FSA link is the same as FS link. do you remember how FS starts? it starts with link being TRICKED into releasing Vaati. do you know how FSA starts? it starts with link being TRICKED into releasing Vaati. now why would it make ANY sense for it to be the same link? do you think that the chosen hero to hold the triforce of courage given to him by the goddesses who has saved Hyrule would make that same mistake twice let alone twice in a pretty close amount of time (seeing as how he probably is the same age in FSA as link in FS)? doesnt make any sense at all.im sure that nintendo and miyamoto would give him a little more credit than that.

"the world of hyrule was at peace once again...or so they thought."

thats just about an exact quote of the last line in the manual. they thought they were at peace. it doesnt say how long. it could have been a day. it could have been 100 years.

you should do more research before you start talking like you know EXACTLY what youre talking about because from what i can tell about your argument, you didnt even really read the manual, you just guessed.

[Skull_Kid]

That's purely speculative though. The book of Mudora was there to tell the story...



If it wasn't for that one quote from the Great deku Tree, i'd agree with you here.



First of all: That quote about the book iof Mudora is pure specualtive... After the fllood, everythging about Hyrule was forgotten, everythig! Location names, etc...

And the quote from the Deku tree... It said it might work, or might not work... I agree with Zemen that this timeline is very farfetch'd

[Smertios]

In TP you find the Master Sword in the woods.
In ALTTP you find the Master Sword in the woods,which tells me that ALTTP takes place on the same timeline.

I thought about that for a while too. But, then, where is the ToT in LttP? And why is the TP forest south of Hyrule Castle and the LttP one north?


Who here can see the huge fail in FSA-OoT?

Exactly. I don't see any connections between OoT and TP Hyrule to the FSA one. The fact that Hyrule is an island in FSA is one of the main reasons why I believe it should be post-flood.

And LttP just fits nicely after FSA. The Deku Tree quote is more than enough to explain why the ocean dispeared from FSA to LttP.


tell me one place where it DOES.

The AoL manual, in reference to Link from LoZ;
The LA manual, in reference to Link from LttP;
MM, in reference to Link from OoT;
and the FSA intro, in reference to Link from FS.

It refers to the first hero that defeated Vaati just as 'a hero', but refers to Link, having defeated Vaati sometime before FSA. That means that Link (from FSA, because there haven't been one single time in which the developers called a different hero by the same name, maybe except for TP) had fought Vaati before. This is pretty much what happened in FS.

And please notice that both times Link only releases Vaati because the seal is getting weak...


but i have never seen/read/heard any quotes like that and the only person i have ever seen say that the creators said there is no timeline is you, so im not gonna take your word for it.

Ok, about the interviews. Here is the quote in which Aonuma, and not Miyamoto, says about FS:


BB: That’s something that, you (Bill Trinen – Localization Team) and I have talked about with the release of the Zelda compilation disc, cleaning up some of the spellings like Ganon, and making sure everything is cohesive. Maybe that’s an American thing – us wanting to know how it all works together. I guess that leads me to my next questions. How do the Links in The Four Swords Adventure relate to the overall story line? Or is it just a subchapter or something like that?

EA: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

Please notice two things. the first being the construction he used when he said about FS being "the oldest tale". He said that they are thinking about it. Which means he didn't have a timeline planned at that exact time. Later, in another interview (I didn't find it in ZL, but i'm sure ZU has it, so I'll post it as soon as ZU is back online), he said with all words that he is still "working on a timeline"...

Now, from the same interview in which he stated that FS was the "oldest tale" (and this can be interpretated different ways):


Billy Berghammer: Yesterday you announced that you were the official new producer over the entire Zelda franchise. You’ve obviously worked with the series for a long time, and with gamers, the Zelda series is held in such high regard. How do you feel about that? Are you nervous about your new position?

Eiji Aonuma: The first title that I was producer on is Four Swords Adventures. Right out of the gates I ran into a lot of problems with that – there are many things that went wrong. So, obviously I realized quickly that there are a lot of high expectations for the Zelda franchise, and that Zelda fans are expecting a lot out of me, and I know that I have a mountain of things to still learn about the franchise. So, I’m going to be going forward, talking with Mr. Miyamoto, having conversations with him as often as I can, learning more about the franchise and continuing to develop it in ways that people will look forward to.

The first Zelda title Aonuma produced was FSA! He had also worked in OoT, MM and TWW (in some of these games as the director). And that's pretty much it. He does not have to be aware of the timeline intent of the games that came before he took over! And FS is one of those...

Miyamoto never said anything about either FS or TMC coming before OoT. I don't know where you guys took that from...

Another of the many things that, IMO, prove that TMC has to come after PH are the enemies. Three kinds actually: moblins, zoras and octorocks.

Please notice that, in OoT, there are no Moblins before Ganon invades the SR. This means that Moblins were either recruited or created by Ganon in the SR (or at least after he got the triforce), which means that Moblins do not exist in the Young Timeline (and I have TP to back that up). In TMc, on the other hand, it is said that Molins existed before and were imprisoned into the bound chest, then released during the game events. So where are them in the first part of OoT??

The red zoras, at first, only appeared in the 2D games. And even though they don't appear in TMC at all, it is usefull to speculate on when they appear. There are absolutely none of them in Oot, TP, or TWW, but they are there for PH! The game marks a transition well to when the red zoras first came around. This is another reason to why the 2D games should comein the AT (just showing you that my timeline is not entirely based on geography and the quote by the Deku Tree ;))

And on octorocks, have you seen any land-walking octorocks in OoT, TP or TWW? No. there were only water octorocks in those games. PH is the first game that shows both types and the water ones do not exist in any of the 2D games. More evidence that they should come after PH (including TMC)...


you should do more research before you start talking like you know EXACTLY what youre talking about because from what i can tell about your argument, you didnt even really read the manual, you just guessed.

i'm still waiting for your explanation on where exactly I contradicted myself ;)


First of all: That quote about the book iof Mudora is pure specualtive... After the fllood, everythging about Hyrule was forgotten, everythig! Location names, etc...

I meant that it is speculation to say that LttP can't follow TWW because the flood would have wiped out the history of the Seal War. Because this is never stated anywhere.

For what TWW shows, i believe it is safe to assume that the legends of the Hero of Time survived. He is referenced to all through the game...


And the quote from the Deku tree... It said it might work, or might not work... I agree with Zemen that this timeline is very farfetch'd

You are saying that you do acknowledge that it can work, but that you prefer the other way?

I too think that TMC can work before OoT, but I believe that there is more evidence for it tocome after PH...

[Zemen]

here is my argument to the whole FSA link being FS link. if you notice in the manual, the first story they talk about clearly is not that similar to MC. in fact, the only similar thing that this back story has with MC is that it talks about Vaati.

the story clearly says "an evil wind sorcerer named Vaati appeared and started kidnapping young maidens."

correct me if im wrong, but that NEVER happens in MC.

it also says "Then a brave young wanderer carrying only a single sword appeared."

this also didnt happen in MC. Link didnt just "appear" and he wasnt a wanderer either. he lived just outside of the castle village and he, just like in FS, is a childhood friend of Zelda. he was there (with his sword) when Vaati first attacked and his quest started right away. its not like Hyrule was in trouble for a month before Link showed up. he was there the whole time.

it also says "when the young lad took out his sword he split in to four beings."

once again, this doesnt happen in MC. he never permanantly splits into four. he uses magic to split into four only for a very short period of time, but this quote implies that he was always four beings from the moment he pulled his sword out.

all of this evidence proves one of three things.

1. either the backstory of FSA isnt talking about MC at all. therefor there would be some game not yet released that has to take place between FSA and MC (besides for FS).

or

2. the events of MC happened SO long ago that the story was changed greatly and if this is the case then you saying that it only speaks of a young lad and not link is not a solid argument because the only reason for that would be that the story had changed and no one could remember it properly.

or the final meaning and my most favorite..

3. we cant count on this manual because its already VERY inaacurate. if the whole explanation about MC doesnt even come clost to explaining MC then the rest of the manual is garbage too.

[Smertios]

You made your point. Just now I realized that the first part of the story in the FSA manual is not supposed to be TMC, but FS BS.

Still, my point for the second part is still valid. It clearly refers to Link from FS as Link...

[Skull_Kid]

No smertios, the deku tree itself says it is unlikely for it to work!Also, the fact that Hyrule is an island in FSA proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Every memory of the old Hyrule was wiped out! and it is mentioned by the King of Hyrule in WW... man, you really need to take a better view of the story

[Zemen]

No smertios, the deku tree itself says it is unlikely for it to work!Also, the fact that Hyrule is an island in FSA proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Every memory of the old Hyrule was wiped out! and it is mentioned by the King of Hyrule in WW... man, you really need to take a better view of the story

i agree with skull kid. the main problem you have with your theories is how you are aquiring them. you base your theories on geography and ONE quote stated in WW. these are not solid reasons. if each game had the same map as the last in its timeline then the game would be boring because there would be no new places to explore. the fact that geography changes is most likely a gameplay choice so that the games that come out feel new. research the actualy plots of the game rather than the geographies.

[sign of table]

and ONE quote stated in WW. So you need more than one quote to prove that islands can take place in a flooded land?
the fact that geography changes is most likely a gameplay choice so that the games that come out feel new. research the actualy plots of the game rather than the geographies. Sure, gameplay maps. But does the water in the background of the FSA map do anything to the gameplay? No.

Here is the main problem I have with all of the FS games not being together. In TP you do not see the FS palace ANYWHERE. Only in tMC, FS, FSA and GBA LttP do you see the palace of the FS.

Vaati gets sealed in the FS and is forgotten about for thousands of years from FS to FSA? Look at the FS map and the FSA map. They look identical from the angle you see from FS. I'd post a pic but Zeldainformer is still down.

Give me an explanation for FSA being an island. Give me an explanation for the islands coming closer to eachother in OoA.

You say using geography as evidence is bad but you place LttP after TP because the MS is in a forest in both games?

[Zemen]

So you need more than one quote to prove that islands can take place in a flooded land? Sure, gameplay maps. But does the water in the background of the FSA map do anything to the gameplay? No.

Here is the main problem I have with all of the FS games not being together. In TP you do not see the FS palace ANYWHERE. Only in tMC, FS, FSA and GBA LttP do you see the palace of the FS.

Vaati gets sealed in the FS and is forgotten about for thousands of years from FS to FSA? Look at the FS map and the FSA map. They look identical from the angle you see from FS. I'd post a pic but Zeldainformer is still down.

Give me an explanation for FSA being an island. Give me an explanation for the islands coming closer to eachother in OoA.

You say using geography as evidence is bad but you place LttP after TP because the MS is in a forest in both games?

so based on this theory, since ALTTP obviously comes RIGHT after FSA, youre saying that if the games do go together and if MC and FS go before OoT like the creators have stated, then that means that ALTTP comes before OoT. haha thats so wrong.

just about everyone on this site will agree with me except for you and this one other guy who is probably a friend of yours.

[sign of table]

Aonuma is the one who said "FS might be first". Aonuma later said that he didn't even have anything to do with FS.

LttP should go after FSA. Different Links, of course, but there are so many similarities that can't be overlooked. Both storyline and geography.

Now in the FSA BS when it says Zelda's childhood friend. You seriously think that does not refer to the current Zelda?


Pretty much everyone on ZU would agree with me and Smertios about this. Hell most of the people on ZI and LA/ZL would agree too. Oh and that FS is first comment happened long before they finished making the game. Oh and this:
if MC and FS go before OoT like the creators have stated, Is taking my words completely out of context. Please don't do that. It isn't very nice.

[Zemen]

Aonuma is the one who said "FS might be first". Aonuma later said that he didn't even have anything to do with FS.

LttP should go after FSA. Different Links, of course, but there are so many similarities that can't be overlooked. Both storyline and geography.

Now in the FSA BS when it says Zelda's childhood friend. You seriously think that does not refer to the current Zelda?


Pretty much everyone on ZU would agree with me and Smertios about this. Hell most of the people on ZI and LA/ZL would agree too. Oh and that FS is first comment happened long before they finished making the game. Oh and this: Is taking my words completely out of context. Please don't do that. It isn't very nice.

youre assuming that just because it says Zelda, that its talking about the current Zelda.

EVERY SINGLE PRINCESS IS NAME ZELDA. if there is an ancient legend in Hyrule that speaks of a princess then its obviousl about Zelda since every newborn girl is named Zelda. stop assuming. use facts, not assumptions. youre using the manual as your main argument and its REALLY annoying. you or whoever that other guy is were arguing that the BS was about MC and then you later agreed it wasnt so youre contradicting yourself and still using the same argument. that just makes you look bad. and please stop referring to maps. we already agreed that the maps are just made different so that each game is unique. who gives a flying fungus if the map is an island or not? not a single game states anything about how its geography has changed EXCEPT for WW and PH. other than that the only reason maps are ever brought up is because people like you WAY over think things.

[sign of table]

you or whoever that other guy is were arguing that the BS was about MC and then you later agreed it wasnt so youre contradicting yourself and still using the same argument. Smertios. I blame the fact that they are different because tMC was released after FSA.
EVERY SINGLE PRINCESS IS NAME ZELDA. For you, though you have to believe that tMC was the sleeping Zelda from the AoL manual. Which makes no sense because she was put to sleep over the triforce and there was no triforce in tMC or FS.
we already agreed that the maps are just made different so that each game is unique. who gives a flying fungus if the map is an island or not? We agreed that the maps are different for gameplay purposes. You've yet to prove that the map being a tiny island has ANYTHING to do with gameplay. I'll PM you with information on the AoL japanese manual so you can see how ridiculous tMC as first really is.

[Skull_Kid]

Zemen, this guy is stubborn, and his theory is very biased!Don't get mad, and calm down... he wouldn't see the truth even if it kicked his nose:P
Also, he is another one of those guys who prefers to contradict the guys who created the series

[Smertios]

so based on this theory, since ALTTP obviously comes RIGHT after FSA, youre saying that if the games do go together and if MC and FS go before OoT like the creators have stated, then that means that ALTTP comes before OoT. haha thats so wrong.

Nobody that worked on TMC or FS ever stated that they come before OoT...


just about everyone on this site will agree with me except for you and this one other guy who is probably a friend of yours.

One other guy? Just scroll up a little and catch the name ;)
And yes, SoJ and I come from the same theorizing school if that's what you meant


youre assuming that just because it says Zelda, that its talking about the current Zelda.

The problem is that they put gameplay first and storyline second. Aonuma said so when he was interviewed about FSA.

It would only make new players confused if they used the same name to refer to a character that doesn't appear in the game. Especially when there is one character with the same name in the game. Aonuma said that Miyamoto wants to avoid that at all costs. That's why they don't add much to the storyline of the games...


Zemen, this guy is stubborn, and his theory is very biased!Don't get mad, and calm down... he wouldn't see the truth even if it kicked his nose
Also, he is another one of those guys who prefers to contradict the guys who created the series

If Miyamoto or any story writer from FS or TMC came and said that the games come first, I would have no reason not to believe it, but the thing is, they never did so. Aonuma said it about FS, while he is not even listed in the credits of FS...

Also, I see that the most common native timeline is
................./-TWW/PH
TMC-FS-OoT
.................\MM-TP-FSA-LttP/LA-LoZ/AoL-OoX

In ZL, the most common timeline is
............/-TWW/PH
TMC-OoT
............\MM-TP-FS/FSA-LttP/LA-OoX-LoZ/AoL

In ZI it would be
...../-TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoX-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA
OoT
.....\MM-TP

And at ZU there are currently 2 most common timelines:
...../-TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoX-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA
OoT
.....\MM-TP
and
...../-TWW/PH-OoX-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA-LoZ/AoL
OoT
.....\MM-TP

I personally don't agree with any of those, but I acknowledge that all of them can work...

[Skull_Kid]

That's why I still think that most theorists from the ZU are biased!Gosh, your head is harder than a Goron's head!
You can't base a whole timeline by a small, unimportant detail on the background of Temple, and a single quote by a biased Deku Tree that is contradicted later in the game

[Smertios]

That's why I still think that most theorists from the ZU are biased!Gosh, your head is harder than a Goron's head!
You can't base a whole timeline by a small, unimportant detail on the background of Temple, and a single quote by a biased Deku Tree that is contradicted later in the game

What detail on the background of a temple??

And as I posted here (http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showpost.php?p=34333&postcount=13), I don't base the entire timeline on that quote, I only use it to order the games.

As I said, this is the reason why I place the games in the AT:

"Not really. I base it on storyline too. Remember that Miyamoto confirmed that OoT is the IW. And the IW is the backstory of LttP. Considering OoT didn't happen (well, at least not the IW part) in the YT, LttP has to come in the AT. FSA has to come before LttP, so it goes to the AT too. As I believe that FS/FSA is hinted, FS does the same. LoZ and AoL have to come there too mainly because of the town names from AoL: they were based on characters the sages from the IW. OoX goes in the AT mainly because of TRR, which shows not only several connections to OoX, but a world that is incredibly similar to how it is in TWW.

I only use geography and the enemies as a means of ordering the games that are in the AT. It is not why i put them there..."

The reason for TMC (I didn't mention TMC in that post) is because it references to the Triumph Forks, which is a name used only in TWW, when the true name of the triforce was fogotten...

[Skull_Kid]

The Triumph Fork things is more likely an easter egg, and You based your theories in the quote of the Deku Tree and even used the background of the Palace of the Winds as an explanation!God, it doesn't mean anything

[Smertios]

The Triumph Fork things is more likely an easter egg, and You based your theories in the quote of the Deku Tree and even used the background of the Palace of the Winds as an explanation!God, it doesn't mean anything

No, I base my timeline on the following information:

1. Miyamoto's interview in which he confirms that OoT is indeed the Seal War.
2. The connection between the FS subseries and LttP.
3. The presence of Moblins, land-octorocks and red zoras only in the AT.
4. The presence of an ocean in TWW and the absense of an ocean in TP.
5. The presence of an ocean in TMC, FSA, LA, LoZ and AoL (taking point 4 in consideration).
6. The references from the Oracle games to TMC, FSA, LttP, LA, LoZ and AoL.
7. the quote from the Deku tree that proves the intent of deflooding by the developers.

Do you have any reading problems? I keep saying all of this and you keep saying that I only base my timeline on one quote. You are the only one being stubborn here. Unlike you, Zemen is taking all of what I and SoJ say and trying to refute it. So, stop saying I only have one quote to back me up, because, as i've posted 4 times already, i have much more supporting my timeline.

You, on the other hand, only have the MS in the forest to support your LttP placement in the YT...

[MrMosley]

I'll admit that in my first posted timeline, (which is my only posted timeline), I included MC after WW as well. As of now, I'm not sure if I would still consider it, but I know it could be a possibility for the simple fact that everything in MC is irrelevant to anything else in the Zelda series (pretty much).

Like when Zemen says people talking about the absense of the Master Sword and all that, that would be me. Personally, I think that it "could" take place after WW because it is set in the new Hyrule. That would explain why things are so different, why people often quote things like Triumph Forks from WW, and why there is no Master Sword (its stuck in Ganondorf's head at the bottom of the sea, in old Hyrule).

At least, that was my original theory. Then recently, Zemen made a post in another thread talking about the Shrine of the Four Sword being in the GBA remake of ALttP. If this is true, which I have seen the Palace of the Four Sword, but not the Shrine with the broken sword and such, then it is likely that my timeline would be incorrect. I wish someone would post a pic or something of this because I cannot find it anywhere, and the clearification would be nice.

[Skull_Kid]

No, I base my timeline on the following information:

1. Miyamoto's interview in which he confirms that OoT is indeed the Seal War.
2. The connection between the FS subseries and LttP.
3. The presence of Moblins, land-octorocks and red zoras only in the AT.
4. The presence of an ocean in TWW and the absense of an ocean in TP.
5. The presence of an ocean in TMC, FSA, LA, LoZ and AoL (taking point 4 in consideration).
6. The references from the Oracle games to TMC, FSA, LttP, LA, LoZ and AoL.
7. the quote from the Deku tree that proves the intent of deflooding by the developers.

Do you have any reading problems? I keep saying all of this and you keep saying that I only base my timeline on one quote. You are the only one being stubborn here. Unlike you, Zemen is taking all of what I and SoJ say and trying to refute it. So, stop saying I only have one quote to back me up, because, as i've posted 4 times already, i have much more supporting my timeline.

You, on the other hand, only have the MS in the forest to support your LttP placement in the YT...

First of all, I have no reading problems,
secondly, your timelin is biased,
third,the map thingie proves absolutely no damn thing,
4th-At the end of WW, the mastersword is on Ganondorf's head, down the bottom of the sea, period!
5th- there was no unflooding, as it is stated somewhere in game!
6th-Old Hyrule was completely forgotten, so how do you explain that people got names and stuffback!
7th-The triforce was also forgotten and they called it Triumph Forks, so how do you explain that suddenly, in the next game in YOUR biased timeline everyone knows what the TRIFORCE is?
8th- If MC is after WW, where did the Light Force come from?
9th-there is no mention of Ganon both in MC and FS!
10TH-There are Octoroks/Moblins etc in MC cause theywere sealed by the HERO OF MEN-GUSTAF!Not the hero oftime, not anyother mention to LiNK,but the hero of men!and Vaati unsealed them when he removed the Piccori Blade
11th-So yeah,btw, where are the Piccori»?

[Smertios]

I'll admit that in my first posted timeline, (which is my only posted timeline), I included MC after WW as well. As of now, I'm not sure if I would still consider it, but I know it could be a possibility for the simple fact that everything in MC is irrelevant to anything else in the Zelda series (pretty much).

Why do you say it's irrelevant?


At least, that was my original theory. Then recently, Zemen made a post in another thread talking about the Shrine of the Four Sword being in the GBA remake of ALttP. If this is true, which I have seen the Palace of the Four Sword, but not the Shrine with the broken sword and such, then it is likely that my timeline would be incorrect. I wish someone would post a pic or something of this because I cannot find it anywhere, and the clearification would be nice.

I also am interested in that. i don't think the shrine appears in LttP at all, but the dundeon in the DW is enough to show connections between FS and LttP...


First of all, I have no reading problems,
secondly, your timelin is biased,
third,the map thingie proves absolutely no damn thing,
4th-At the end of WW, the mastersword is on Ganondorf's head, down the bottom of the sea, period!
5th- there was no unflooding, as it is stated somewhere in game!
6th-Old Hyrule was completely forgotten, so how do you explain that people got names and stuffback!
7th-The triforce was also forgotten and they called it Triumph Forks, so how do you explain that suddenly, in the next game in YOUR biased timeline everyone knows what the TRIFORCE is?
8th- If MC is after WW, where did the Light Force come from?
9th-there is no mention of Ganon both in MC and FS!
10TH-There are Octoroks/Moblins etc in MC cause theywere sealed by the HERO OF MEN-GUSTAF!Not the hero oftime, not anyother mention to LiNK,but the hero of men!and Vaati unsealed them when he removed the Piccori Blade
11th-So yeah,btw, where are the Piccori»?

ok, let's go...

4. Exactly. It is in a stone in the end of TWW and in a stone in the beginning of LttP.

5. Where?

6. Gameplay > Storyline

7. idem + Book of Mudora

8. The Picori Realm of course. Why would the triforce be with the picori??
And notice that the name of the Light Force in the original japanese is the same name for the Force Gems, thus implying that they are the same thing...

9. So what? There is also no mention of Ganon in PH, LA or MM...

10. Then where did Ganon take the moblins from in OoT? And what happened to the octorocks and moblins after TMC?

11. Hmm, unseen because they are hidden before TMC and in their own world after TMC... This was stated in-game in TMC...

[Zemen]

Why do you say it's irrelevant?



I also am interested in that. i don't think the shrine appears in LttP at all, but the dundeon in the DW is enough to show connections between FS and LttP...



ok, let's go...

4. Exactly. It is in a stone in the end of TWW and in a stone in the beginning of LttP.

5. Where?

6. Gameplay > Storyline

7. idem + Book of Mudora

8. The Picori Realm of course. Why would the triforce be with the picori??
And notice that the name of the Light Force in the original japanese is the same name for the Force Gems, thus implying that they are the same thing...

9. So what? There is also no mention of Ganon in PH, LA or MM...

10. Then where did Ganon take the moblins from in OoT? And what happened to the octorocks and moblins after TMC?

11. Hmm, unseen because they are hidden before TMC and in their own world after TMC... This was stated in-game in TMC...

i have no idea what this book of mudora is. if you could explain that it would be great.

PH does not mention Ganon because the game has NOTHING TO DO WITH GANON. i would also like to mention that spear moblins are still around in PH even though ganondorf is "dead"

you cant say that the MS being in stone in ALTTP is the same as in WW because in WW the stone is clearly ganondorf. i doubt that someone came along and chizzled it to make it look like a pedestal. the point of the sword is that only a great hero can wield it and also that only the royal family knows where it is, IMO. also, the sword is left in the forsaken fortress at the end of WW. when they found a new Hyrule are we supposed to believe they went back for the master sword AND chizzled it to look like a pedestal?

LA has you fight a shadow form of Ganon so he is shown even though he isnt mentioned.

why would they need to mention Ganon in MM? it takes place in a different dimension/country depending on what you believe. it takes place in a world where no one knows who ganon/dorf is so why does it matter that they dont mention him?

all three of those games you mentioned that you say dont mention ganon dont need to mention ganon because they are all sequels to games that have ganon/dorf as an antagonist.

MC is not a sequel to a game. its a prequel that introduces a completely new antagonist and talks about a hero who sealed away monsters. it also makes it clear that this hero is NOT link. it also makes it clear that there was not ONE MAIN ENEMY but rather an army of monsters. if ganon had anything to do with the war over the light force, it would have been mentioned. the back story of MC also does not at all correspond to any other game in the series. the back story for all of the Zelda games (the ones that have BS') are pretty clear in their explanation of a past Zelda game, but MC doesnt have a BS that corresponds to any other Zelda game OR link which leads me to believe that it is first in the timeline.

also i believe that in this thread or another thread you said something about MC being near an ocean. ive looked at the map from MC and there is no ocean. there is a lake/river but no ocean on the map. its pretty landlocked. its similar to OoT even (i dont mean map-wise i mean its traits). it has a mountain, a river/lake and a forest. the only major difference is that OoT has a desert and MC has a swamp.

for the record, im not using geography to explain this, im only putting that in there because you seem to think geography plays a role in timelines. i dont.

[sign of table]

God. So because the MS is in Ganondorf's head at the end of tWW there can't be MS games after tWW? Even though a zora finds a broken MS in OoA? I guess zora can't swim.

The land in FSA is FLOODED. That water around the island DOES NOTHING FOR GAMEPLAY. Therefore the water around the island hyrule in FSA.

Here is the funny thing. You say it should go TP-LttP because of the MS placement? I thought geography was a bad way to base a timeline. Oh and Ganon's titles make absolutely NO sense for TP-LttP. Also for the TP-LttP to make sense because of the MS you would also have to make it go TP-LttP-OoA/OoS. Hmm let's look at this.

TP happens. WtfSWmakesnosense then LttP happens and Ganon is a Yami no Maou for no reason. Then OoX happens wtf Ganon is a daimaou. Wtf Ganon is a Yami no Maou again. Then the rest of the games have Ganon as a daimaou.

Because you think storyline matters more than geography your TP-LttP doesn't work. Instead of calling our timeline biased why don't you look at all of the evidence you have to disregard to make your timeline work. I think you guys have been watching a little too much GameTrailers...
So here I go responding to each of your points.
4th-At the end of WW, the mastersword is on Ganondorf's head, down the bottom of the sea, period!
5th- there was no unflooding, as it is stated somewhere in game!
6th-Old Hyrule was completely forgotten, so how do you explain that people got names and stuffback!
7th-The triforce was also forgotten and they called it Triumph Forks, so how do you explain that suddenly, in the next game in YOUR biased timeline everyone knows what the TRIFORCE is?
8th- If MC is after WW, where did the Light Force come from?
9th-there is no mention of Ganon both in MC and FS!
10TH-There are Octoroks/Moblins etc in MC cause theywere sealed by the HERO OF MEN-GUSTAF!Not the hero oftime, not anyother mention to LiNK,but the hero of men!and Vaati unsealed them when he removed the Piccori Blade
4. A zora in the past of OoA gives you a broken MS.
5. Hmm maybe the Deku Tree's plan worked? The islands in OoA present or closer together and combining whereas in OoA past they are more spread out. This EXACTLY describes the Deku Tree's plan. Hell, the Maku tree's could have grown from when the Korok's planted all the deku trees.
6. Well gameplay > storyline. The oracles are in tMC. They are descendants from a line of oracles from Labrynna and Holodrum. Therefore tMC and OoX should be in the same timeline. If OoX takes place on the AT then tMC takes place there too.
7. Hmm they call it Triumph Forks in tMC... so with that logic you should have tMC on the AT. And only 1 person called it Triumph Forks. And that is the fish men. Everyone else called it the triforce.
The japanese manual of LttP says that the SW was passed down in some sort of scroll. The SW has stuff about the triforce. Oh and the book of Mudora.
9. OMGZ VAATI ISN'T MENTIONED IN TWW, OOT, TP, MM, PH, LA, LTTP, LOZ, AOL, OOS AND OOA. OMG THE TMC AND FS HAVE TO BE AFTER ALL OF THOSE!!!1!!1111!!!!ONEONEone!!1
10. Someone's been watching too much gametrailers... Gustaf is NEVER said to be the hero of men. Gametrailers made that up.

PH does not mention Ganon because the game has NOTHING TO DO WITH GANON. tMC does not mention Ganon because the game has NOTHING TO DO WITH GANON.

I'll respond to the rest of your points later. You posted while I was making my post so I didn't see yours.
Come on. I was hoping for better than that.

[Zemen]

God. So because the MS is in Ganondorf's head at the end of tWW there can't be MS games after tWW? Even though a zora finds a broken MS in OoA? I guess zora can't swim.

The land in FSA is FLOODED. That water around the island DOES NOTHING FOR GAMEPLAY. Therefore the water around the island hyrule in FSA.

Here is the funny thing. You say it should go TP-LttP because of the MS placement? I thought geography was a bad way to base a timeline. Oh and Ganon's titles make absolutely NO sense for TP-LttP. Also for the TP-LttP to make sense because of the MS you would also have to make it go TP-LttP-OoA/OoS. Hmm let's look at this.

TP happens. WtfSWmakesnosense then LttP happens and Ganon is a Yami no Maou for no reason. Then OoX happens wtf Ganon is a daimaou. Wtf Ganon is a Yami no Maou again. Then the rest of the games have Ganon as a daimaou.

Because you think storyline matters more than geography your TP-LttP doesn't work. Instead of calling our timeline biased why don't you look at all of the evidence you have to disregard to make your timeline work. I think you guys have been watching a little too much GameTrailers...
So here I go responding to each of your points. 4. A zora in the past of OoA gives you a broken MS.
5. Hmm maybe the Deku Tree's plan worked? The islands in OoA present or closer together and combining whereas in OoA past they are more spread out. This EXACTLY describes the Deku Tree's plan. Hell, the Maku tree's could have grown from when the Korok's planted all the deku trees.
6. Well gameplay > storyline. The oracles are in tMC. They are descendants from a line of oracles from Labrynna and Holodrum. Therefore tMC and OoX should be in the same timeline. If OoX takes place on the AT then tMC takes place there too.
7. Hmm they call it Triumph Forks in tMC... so with that logic you should have tMC on the AT. And only 1 person called it Triumph Forks. And that is the fish men. Everyone else called it the triforce.
The japanese manual of LttP says that the SW was passed down in some sort of scroll. The SW has stuff about the triforce. Oh and the book of Mudora.
9. OMGZ VAATI ISN'T MENTIONED IN TWW, OOT, TP, MM, PH, LA, LTTP, LOZ, AOL, OOS AND OOA. OMG THE TMC AND FS HAVE TO BE AFTER ALL OF THOSE!!!1!!1111!!!!ONEONEone!!1
10. Someone's been watching too much gametrailers... Gustaf is NEVER said to be the hero of men. Gametrailers made that up.
tMC does not mention Ganon because the game has NOTHING TO DO WITH GANON.

I'll respond to the rest of your points later. You posted while I was making my post so I didn't see yours.
Come on. I was hoping for better than that.

except that all the trees were planted over HYRULE and labrynna and that other village in OoX are clearly NOT Hyrule...

i doubt the Maku tree was grown from a normal tree. if anything its a descendant of the Deku Tree or it was created anew by the same means that the orignial Deku Tree was created (no one knows how).

i dont recall ANY mention of triumph forks/triforce in MC so if you could find an in game quote that would be awesome.

youre assuming that the three goddesses in MC are descendants of oracles. i dont remember them saying that at all. in fact, they arent important to anything in the game. they are more of a cameo appearance but they never say anything of importance.

just about all of your stuff is based off of the japanese versions of the game. welcome to America, homes.

[sign of table]

except that all the trees were planted over HYRULE and labrynna and that other village in OoX are clearly NOT Hyrule... Proof that the great sea is new hyrule? I'd be more inclined to think that the place where PH takes place is where hyrule is because of maze island.

i dont recall ANY mention of triumph forks/triforce in MC so if you could find an in game quote that would be awesome. In the library in tMC the backs of the books say things in an altered form of japanese. One of the books has the word Triumph Forks.
youre assuming that the three goddesses in MC are descendants of oracles. i dont remember them saying that at all. in fact, they arent important to anything in the game. they are more of a cameo appearance but they never say anything of importance. The figurines of Nayru say that she is a descendant of a line of oracles from Labrynna.
just about all of your stuff is based off of the japanese versions of the game. welcome to America, homes. O M F G. So the NoA versions are more canon than the original japanese versions?

[Karashimu]

just about all of your stuff is based off of the japanese versions of the game. welcome to America, homes.

This is the most ignorant thing I have read as of 2009. Congratulations.

[Midna666]

The Zora become the Rito(on the adult timeline)so they could not pull the sword out of Ganon.

[sign of table]

Proof that they all evolved?

[Zemen]

This is the most ignorant thing I have read as of 2009. Congratulations.

this does not contribute to the thread at all so congratulations to you.


Proof that they all evolved?

in WW, the zora sage tells you to find her DESCENDANT that carries the same instrument as her and she is supposed to be the new sage. her DESCENDANT that you find is a Rito, not a Zora which implies that the rito were once Zora, but they no longer are and evolved to adapt to the new world that was created when Hyrule was flooded. if there were other Zora in the world then why are they not in WW or PH? this leads me to believe that all Zora died out or evolved. also, the name "Rito" is very close to the original Zora sage from OoT named "Ruto" so that is another clue that the tribe was named after the first Zora sage. also, the sage in WW that is a Zora is named Laruto which is close to Ruto which is close to Rito. theres your proof.

another thing i just thought of is that Hyrule is at the bottom of the great sea but no one knows about Hyrule. if there were still Zora around then chances are they would have come across the Hyrule under the sea and tell someone about it. the fact that this is not the case, the fact that we dont see any Zora, the fact that the sage calls a member of the Rito tribe her descendant seems proof enough that there are no Zora and that the Rito evolved from them.

and as Midna666 put it, if the Zora evolved into the Rito (like WW suggests) then they would not be around to bring the sword from the bottom of the sea unless the Rito "re-evolved" back into Zora which is HIGHLY unlikely.


i would like to point out one tiny thing. when you make your timeline, you look at EVERY TINY THING as if the creators purposely have a timeline in mind which they have told us they dont put in high regard. the creators have told us that they dont put so much thought into a timeline so why do you believe that EVERY SINGLE TINY THING is proof that a game goes where you say it goes? if this was the case then the creators lied to us and they really do have a timeline in mind when they create every aspect of the game but we know this to be false. you take everything WAY to literally. i doubt that the tiny things that only zeldabangers like you notice have anything to do with a timeline. wasnt it you too who earlier said that Aonume (or however you spell it) said that there is no timeline that he knows of? if thats the case then the tiny stuff you keep arguing DEFINITELY doesnt help explain a timeline.

[blackmoon]

The original Japanese version of TWW uses the word "predecessor" instead of "decendant" when Medli is talking about Laruto.

I also strongly doubt the creators meant for anything to evolve. Evolution take millions of years, over which EVERYTHING changes!


youre using the fact that there is water in FSA as a reason of where your putting it. i think that using geogrpahy is a terrible way to come up with a timeline. you say that ALTTP is just completely land with no water around it. if this is the case then why would LoZ be after ALTTP? LoZ has a coast, so this destroys that idea. youre basing your ENTIRE timeline on ONE quote in the series. when the deku tree says that, he is referring to you going around and watering all the trees but that is just a SIDE QUEST. if it had more significance to it like you think it does then it would have been much more focused on in the game.

The idea that the Deku Tree puts forward does, to me, seem to have some significance. It's almost as if the creators realised halfway through the game, "Oh sh!t, how does Hyrule come back?" and they found a nice sidequest to put in a little quote to give a reason to how Hyrule may come back.

Of course, it IS just a sidequest, and it is very unfocused, but to me, it does look as if the developers wanted to put the idea that Hyrule would one day come back into the fans heads. The land could be deflooded in a number of ways, not necessarily the one the GDT put forward, but the intent certainly is there.


As for the geography of FSA... sorry, I don't buy it. The overworld map is not meant to be taken literally. Take Ocarina of Time, for example. If I'm crossing the field, it takes about two minutes to get from Kokiri Forest to Hyrule Castle Town, and about four minutes for an entire day to pass. Also, how long does it take to scale Death Mountain? Maybe a minute, to get to the very top? I don't know of many mountains where one can do that.

It's not meant to be 100% literal, otherwise half the game would be running places.

Now, onto the actual Ocean point; I can understand why someone would take it to mean FSA comes after TWW; in fact, I think it fits quite well. However, when you do this, you must also take in all other taken facts. If ALttP comes after TWW, then all memory of OoT must be taken to be lost, or at least not common knowledge. One could argue that the Book of Mudora could come from the OoT era, but very few people would know about the IW.

Speaking of the IW, although it was originally supposed to have been OoT; I believe it to have been retconned. Now that TWW and TP are both direct sequels to OoT; it doesn't make sense for OoT to be the IW.

In other words, for OoT to be the IW, the timeline must go

......ALttP
OoT/

I think it's more likely that FSA was retconned to be the IW. The 4S can be found in the Dark World of ALttP, and I don't think there is any reason that the sages couldn't have put a Seal around the 4S after the game ends. This makes much more sense to me.


Now, I agree that TMC doesn't need to come first. The quote used is innaccurate and has been contradicted. On that note, I see no reason NOT to put it first. The quote from Anouma says that he may have been wrong about 4S being first, but I see no real reason NOT to put it first. So, I won't argue the point, even though I have always put TMC first in my timeline.

[Skull_Kid]

The figurines of Nayru say that she is a descendant of a line of oracles from Labrynna.


Well... that actually proves nothing except for the fact that there was already a line of Oracles before Her, and probably went On, over the years, so just helps to prove that there have been Oracles like...since the dawn of ages or so.

I have to contradict Zemen on this one, the Japanese version is the canon version, unless it is retconned by the creators...
Like in the Japanese version of the SNES ALttP some things are way different from the USA version, fortubately, that was corrected in the GBA version and both versions are Matches.

The Zoras evolved into Rito, but, PH brought something that made me think if they all evolved: The Zora Scale... if there are no more Zora's, where did it come from?

Also, the reference to the Triumph Forks is also on the European version of MC, at least.

One thing that I noticed is that there are no Zora's in MC and FS(if I recall correctly), but they are in FSA.

We all assumed and is given by some in-game dialogues that the Zora evolved into Rito cause they couldn't stand the salt water.
But this is contradicted in OoA in wich there is a whole Zora City in the Sea, and they even claim that they aren't as rude as their river counterparts(referring to the ones that pop out and throw fireballs).

I also don't think that, even if hyrule unflooded, people would chisel down Ganondorf's body to make a pedestal.

Someone told up there that he thinks that the Great Sea of PH is more probably Hyrule because of the Maze Island. Well... I can disprove this in two separate ways:

1st- The Geography is all wrong

2nd- PH is in a paralell dimension, as it is hinted by the ending!

Also, I don't think that the Maku Trees are grown from normal trees... What I can assume is that, if the Oracles would come after WW(wich I don't think they are), and the plan of the Deku Tree worked, the Trees that were withering evolved into Maku trees... But it is unlikely, cause I don't believe in that sequence of games

[Smertios]

i have no idea what this book of mudora is. if you could explain that it would be great.

The Book of Mudora is an iten from LttP. It is said to have the legends of hyrule written in it.


PH does not mention Ganon because the game has NOTHING TO DO WITH GANON. i would also like to mention that spear moblins are still around in PH even though ganondorf is "dead"

That is my point. Just because there is no Ganon in some games doesn't mean they have to come before OoT


you cant say that the MS being in stone in ALTTP is the same as in WW because in WW the stone is clearly ganondorf. i doubt that someone came along and chizzled it to make it look like a pedestal. the point of the sword is that only a great hero can wield it and also that only the royal family knows where it is, IMO. also, the sword is left in the forsaken fortress at the end of WW. when they found a new Hyrule are we supposed to believe they went back for the master sword AND chizzled it to look like a pedestal?

Weird enough, this is how the MS ended in Ganondorf's head in TWW:
http://desertcolossus.com/compendium/ganonforehead.jpg

It's exactly the same position the MS is in LttP...


MC is not a sequel to a game. its a prequel that introduces a completely new antagonist and talks about a hero who sealed away monsters. it also makes it clear that this hero is NOT link. it also makes it clear that there was not ONE MAIN ENEMY but rather an army of monsters. if ganon had anything to do with the war over the light force, it would have been mentioned. the back story of MC also does not at all correspond to any other game in the series. the back story for all of the Zelda games (the ones that have BS') are pretty clear in their explanation of a past Zelda game, but MC doesnt have a BS that corresponds to any other Zelda game OR link which leads me to believe that it is first in the timeline.

I really don't get your point there. If Ganon was dead after TWW and alive again for FSA, he didn't need to be there for TMC or FS...


also i believe that in this thread or another thread you said something about MC being near an ocean. ive looked at the map from MC and there is no ocean. there is a lake/river but no ocean on the map. its pretty landlocked. its similar to OoT even (i dont mean map-wise i mean its traits). it has a mountain, a river/lake and a forest. the only major difference is that OoT has a desert and MC has a swamp.

Go way up to the Palace of Winds and look down below. This is what you'll see:
http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp345/Lord_Insizor/minishcaphyruleasisland.png

It seems like an ocean to me (and it is in TMC)...


i dont recall ANY mention of triumph forks/triforce in MC so if you could find an in game quote that would be awesome.

It is the name of one of the books in the library of TMC. It is written in the hylian alphabet so it's hard to find a quote. There is a study in ZL I think. I'll see if i can find it for you...


just about all of your stuff is based off of the japanese versions of the game. welcome to America, homes.

But the game is japanese. The other versions can't be more canon...


The Zora become the Rito(on the adult timeline)so they could not pull the sword out of Ganon.

PH shows red zoras too, implying that some of the blue zoras from OoT did not become rito...


another thing i just thought of is that Hyrule is at the bottom of the great sea but no one knows about Hyrule. if there were still Zora around then chances are they would have come across the Hyrule under the sea and tell someone about it. the fact that this is not the case, the fact that we dont see any Zora, the fact that the sage calls a member of the Rito tribe her descendant seems proof enough that there are no Zora and that the Rito evolved from them.

There were no zoras in Hyrule in TWW. That's why none found Hyrule...


and as Midna666 put it, if the Zora evolved into the Rito (like WW suggests) then they would not be around to bring the sword from the bottom of the sea unless the Rito "re-evolved" back into Zora which is HIGHLY unlikely.

There is no proof that all zoras evolved into rito though...


the creators have told us that they dont put so much thought into a timeline so why do you believe that EVERY SINGLE TINY THING is proof that a game goes where you say it goes?

In the same interview in which Aonuma said that FS is the "oldest tale of Hyrule" he said that, after a game is complete, they add stuff to conect it to other games' storylines. So, we should look at every single detail to see what he was talking about...


The original Japanese version of TWW uses the word "predecessor" instead of "decendant" when Medli is talking about Laruto.

I also strongly doubt the creators meant for anything to evolve. Evolution take millions of years, over which EVERYTHING changes!

Exactly...


The idea that the Deku Tree puts forward does, to me, seem to have some significance. It's almost as if the creators realised halfway through the game, "Oh sh!t, how does Hyrule come back?" and they found a nice sidequest to put in a little quote to give a reason to how Hyrule may come back.

Again, this is what i was talking about...


In other words, for OoT to be the IW, the timeline must go

......ALttP
OoT/

I think it's more likely that FSA was retconned to be the IW. The 4S can be found in the Dark World of ALttP, and I don't think there is any reason that the sages couldn't have put a Seal around the 4S after the game ends. This makes much more sense to me.

FSA does not match the IW description from LttP. First that Ganon was never sealed in the Sr. Second that the triforce is not even mentioned in the game...


Well... that actually proves nothing except for the fact that there was already a line of Oracles before Her, and probably went On, over the years, so just helps to prove that there have been Oracles like...since the dawn of ages or so.

We agree on that...


The Zoras evolved into Rito, but, PH brought something that made me think if they all evolved: The Zora Scale... if there are no more Zora's, where did it come from?

The japanese version of TWW does not use the word 'descendent' when referring to Laruto at all. That was the only thing implying that the Rito evolved from the zoras...


I also don't think that, even if hyrule unflooded, people would chisel down Ganondorf's body to make a pedestal.

With enough time, the ocean itself would have made it look just as a ordinary rock. After it deflooded, people could have built the pedestal around the stone...


Someone told up there that he thinks that the Great Sea of PH is more probably Hyrule because of the Maze Island. Well... I can disprove this in two separate ways:

1st- The Geography is all wrong

2nd- PH is in a paralell dimension, as it is hinted by the ending!

Later you take a look at this please:
http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/zelda-theorizing/89088-mastering-geography.html

And I believe someone said that the japanese version doesn't imply that it's a different dimension...


Also, I don't think that the Maku Trees are grown from normal trees... What I can assume is that, if the Oracles would come after WW(wich I don't think they are), and the plan of the Deku Tree worked, the Trees that were withering evolved into Maku trees... But it is unlikely, cause I don't believe in that sequence of games

At least you acknowledge that it can work...

[Zemen]

no timeline was ever thought of until after OoT was made. the only games that were made AFTER OoT were WW, TP, MM, MC, FSA, PH and i guess the "remake" of ALTTP which is pretty much the same with a few differences. other than that, all other Zelda games were not made with any timeline in mind whatsoever. the original ALTTP was made before the timeline theories so using evidence from ALTTP to support a timeline is irrelevant.

whoever made that comment on evolution, here is my rebuttal.

OBVIOUSLY the land of Hyrule is very different to our own world. anything seems to be possible. there is magic all over the place. maybe the Zora didnt evolve but maybe they were magically changed into the Rito. we already know that magic CAN change creatures seeing as how the deku tree changed the kokiri into the koroks. whos to say that jabu jabu (who is the zora equivalent of the deku tree) didnt use some sort of magic to turn them into the Rito tribe. also it was stated that the only evidence to support the rito tribe being evolved Zoras is that the zora sage says descendents. thats not at all the only evidence. as i said, the name itself is VERY similar to Ruto who was the water sage in OoT.

rIto...rUto....seem very similar to me.

youre right, maybe he deku tree sidequest does explain how the water comes back, but as i stated before, if this is the case then it should have been MUCH more focused especially if the creators intended on that side quest to help explain timelines. it seems like too much of a footnote to be taken so seriously.

you read the books in the library in MC. you translated the Hylian alphabet to figure out that the books talk about the triumph fork. seems like WAY to much work just to figure out where a game goes on a timeline. like seriously, i bet youre one of maybe 3 people in the world who actually checked that. i HIGHLY doubt it has any significance seeing as how it was probably never meant to even be translated. i bet the creators never expected anyone to translate. it was just in there for fun.

youre making it sound like ALTTP was made with WW in mind but that is impossible seeing as how long ago ALTTP was made. you say that the ocean could have helped chip away at the rock. thats true, that could happen, but i doubt that when the creators were making ALTTP they said "some day we are gonna make a game that has a sword sticking into ganondorfs head and then the ocean will make the stone of ganondorf look just like this pedestal."

in order for this to happen they would have had to make WW with ALTTP in mind which is more likely, except that WW makes no references to ALTTP except that both games have the master sword, but you could say that for almost every Zelda game..

[sign of table]

no timeline was ever thought of until after OoT was made. the only games that were made AFTER OoT were WW, TP, MM, MC, FSA, PH and i guess the "remake" of ALTTP which is pretty much the same with a few differences. other than that, all other Zelda games were not made with any timeline in mind whatsoever. the original ALTTP was made before the timeline theories so using evidence from ALTTP to support a timeline is irrelevant. That is the second-most fail logic I've ever heard. If that's the case take out LttP, LoZ, AoL and LA out of your timeline.
you read the books in the library in MC. you translated the Hylian alphabet to figure out that the books talk about the triumph fork. seems like WAY to much work just to figure out where a game goes on a timeline. like seriously, i bet youre one of maybe 3 people in the world who actually checked that. i HIGHLY doubt it has any significance seeing as how it was probably never meant to even be translated. i bet the creators never expected anyone to translate. it was just in there for fun. Actually, it is pretty common knowledge to most of the theorizing community. Almost everyone on LA, ZI and ZU know it. I've even seen people on youtube who know it!
in order for this to happen they would have had to make WW with ALTTP in mind which is more likely, except that WW makes no references to ALTTP except that both games have the master sword, but you could say that for almost every Zelda game.. You can't disregard evidence just because it was made previously. Once again fail logic. It's still evidence and it can still work.

Oh and about your Rito thing. Please read what I say this time. You've been misreading me every time.

I agree that the Rito are evolved Zora. I've agreed with you on that this whole time. I'm asking for proof that EVERY SINGLE ZORA EVOLVED INTO RITO. You seem to be assuming that all zora evolved into rito. There is no proof that ALL of them evolved.

[Zemen]

That is the second-most fail logic I've ever heard. If that's the case take out LttP, LoZ, AoL and LA out of your timeline. Actually, it is pretty common knowledge to most of the theorizing community. Almost everyone on LA, ZI and ZU know it. I've even seen people on youtube who know it! You can't disregard evidence just because it was made previously. Once again fail logic. It's still evidence and it can still work.

the people who go on youtube and translate that stuff are people who WAY overthink those things and are zeldabangers.

as i said, and as you agreed on with me, the creators are more into gameplay than a timeline. you even said that aunome knows of no specific timeline at this time. that is the tiniest detail i have ever heard someone present as evidence. youre looking for reasons that arent there. now im not gonna post anymore on this thread untill the discussion is actually going somewhere because youre saying the same things over and over which cause me to say the same things over and over and its boring.

[sign of table]

So what if it is a small detail? It's still in the games and it still says a word that wasn't even developed until tWW.

Ok so I want to ask something. What evidence is there for tMC being first? I've seen you try and counter our points about how it can't be first. But I haven't seen any legitimate reasons for it to actually be first.

[Smertios]

no timeline was ever thought of until after OoT was made. the only games that were made AFTER OoT were WW, TP, MM, MC, FSA, PH and i guess the "remake" of ALTTP which is pretty much the same with a few differences. other than that, all other Zelda games were not made with any timeline in mind whatsoever. the original ALTTP was made before the timeline theories so using evidence from ALTTP to support a timeline is irrelevant.

But they did change a lot in the gba version to make it fit into the timeline. They even strengthened the connections between LttP and OoT (like changing the name from Wise Men for Sages) and made connections between LttP and FS (the dungeon)...


youre right, maybe he deku tree sidequest does explain how the water comes back, but as i stated before, if this is the case then it should have been MUCH more focused especially if the creators intended on that side quest to help explain timelines. it seems like too much of a footnote to be taken so seriously.

You haven't understood that they do add small details to make timeline connections right? Aonuma said that himself...


you read the books in the library in MC. you translated the Hylian alphabet to figure out that the books talk about the triumph fork. seems like WAY to much work just to figure out where a game goes on a timeline. like seriously, i bet youre one of maybe 3 people in the world who actually checked that. i HIGHLY doubt it has any significance seeing as how it was probably never meant to even be translated. i bet the creators never expected anyone to translate. it was just in there for fun.

Actually, i'm the one person in the world who didn't. I don't know japanese...
I just payed attention to a study about that done by the people from ZL...


youre making it sound like ALTTP was made with WW in mind but that is impossible seeing as how long ago ALTTP was made. you say that the ocean could have helped chip away at the rock. thats true, that could happen, but i doubt that when the creators were making ALTTP they said "some day we are gonna make a game that has a sword sticking into ganondorfs head and then the ocean will make the stone of ganondorf look just like this pedestal."

in order for this to happen they would have had to make WW with ALTTP in mind which is more likely, except that WW makes no references to ALTTP except that both games have the master sword, but you could say that for almost every Zelda game..

Maybe they wanted to hint that. We can't be sure...


the people who go on youtube and translate that stuff are people who WAY overthink those things and are zeldabangers.

If it's not to look at the details, why bother making a timeline theory at all??


as i said, and as you agreed on with me, the creators are more into gameplay than a timeline. you even said that aunome knows of no specific timeline at this time. that is the tiniest detail i have ever heard someone present as evidence. youre looking for reasons that arent there. now im not gonna post anymore on this thread untill the discussion is actually going somewhere because youre saying the same things over and over which cause me to say the same things over and over and its boring.

Aonuma said he "is working" on the timeline, not that he doesn't have one...

[Zemen]

So what if it is a small detail? It's still in the games and it still says a word that wasn't even developed until tWW.

Ok so I want to ask something. What evidence is there for tMC being first? I've seen you try and counter our points about how it can't be first. But I haven't seen any legitimate reasons for it to actually be first.

fine. here i go.

1 - this is what most people consider to be the weakest reason so ill start with it. the hat. you start off with no hat. you play the game with a hat like creature on your head. after you save him from being a hat permanantly he gives you a hat saying it suits you. its the only game in the series where you dont start out with the hat and then recieve it saying that the hero of legends wore it.

example - in WW you dont start out with any of the clothing but when you do recieve it you are told that the hero of time wore a similar outfit.

this doesnt happen in MC. no one tells you that an ancient hero wore a hat like that. he just gives it to you because he thinks it suits you. thats a good explanation as to why any link wears a hat. if MC is first and that is the original Link then it explains why all other Links wear a hat.

i will be coming back to this idea a little bit later.

2 - the BS of the game does not speak of any previous Zelda game.

example - the BS for WW obviously is talking about OoT. the BS for TP is what many believe to be what happens after Link returns to his childhood. the manual BS for FSA talks about FS. many believe that the BS for ALTTP is talking about OoT. every game that has a BS, has a BS that is obviously related to a previous game in the series.

this isnt the case with MC. the BS for MC is not at all related to any other title. also, the hero spoken of in the BS is the hero of men, Gustav...NOT LINK. also, even if you argue that it isnt Gustav in the BS, the hero in the BS still is not wearing a hat. if it was a Link from a previous game than the portraits/glass in the kingdom that shows the legend would have the hero wearing a hat. link is never referred to as the hero of men in any zelda game.
(this was where i went back to the hat idea).

3 - the BS does not talk about any ONE super evil being. it only talks about an army of creatures. there is no mention of Ganon/dorf or any other higher being which leads many to believe that there is no higher being, just monsters. the hero of men sealed those creatures away. they obviously have a legend thats passed down but this legend never speaks of an evil leader. im also pretty sure that this is the only zelda game that takes place in Hyrule that doesnt have Ganon/dorf in it and if Ganon/dorf had existed before this game, then he would have been mentioned somewhere by someone. (FS too but FS isnt considered to be a full blown game).

4 - this is Vaati's introduction. Vaati was a picori. he wanted more power so he stole the hat that his master made so he could become a powerful sorcerer. Vaati releases the monsters onto the world from the chest that they once were sealed in. at the end of the game, Vaati is sealed in the chest but the monsters are not. this could explain why Hyrule/the world has monsters to begin with. also, this could explain why no other game has picori in it. after they saw how powerful the picori are and could become, the people could have gotten scared and made them go back to their own world thinking that it is best. we know that the royal family has made a group move out of fear (the gerudo into the gerudo desert) so its possible. if this is the first game in the timeline and the picori are sent back to their world it would explain why they are in no other game.

5 - this is a recent theory i came up with so im going to see how it goes with this explanation. the light force is never spoken of in any game. if this power was fought over in ancient times and if this game takes place after WW/PH then why did it take so long to be fought over again? dont you think that Ganon/dorf would be after this power too? its the only game that mentions the light force and a war over the light force. now here is my theory. in the game, the power of the light force is given to Zelda. this could explain why the royal family has magical powers. it is never explained why the ocarina of time has the power it has. what if the royal family used their magic recieved from the light force to give the ocarina power. if we remember correctly, in some of the games the kings seem to have some magic power to them. they obviously dont get their power from a triforce so they have to get it from somewhere. if MC goes first on the timeline, it would help explain why the royal family has the powers that it has.

this isnt really meant to be an argument just a theory i came up with.

you wanted me to explain why it could go first on a timeline. there ya go.

[Skull_Kid]

Smertios, what Red Zoras are you referring to, in PH?The Zora Warriors that fight like Dark Nuts?
Also, no matter what they say in the Japanese version... In the end we all know that the Tetra crew says that they've been only in the Ghost Ship for what,?10 minutes?
Even though I don't really agree with your timeline, you raised some good points, and I must congrat you about that, smertios

[sign of table]

1 - this is what most people consider to be the weakest reason so ill start with it. the hat. you start off with no hat. you play the game with a hat like creature on your head. after you save him from being a hat permanantly he gives you a hat saying it suits you. its the only game in the series where you dont start out with the hat and then recieve it saying that the hero of legends wore it.

example - in WW you dont start out with any of the clothing but when you do recieve it you are told that the hero of time wore a similar outfit.

this doesnt happen in MC. no one tells you that an ancient hero wore a hat like that. he just gives it to you because he thinks it suits you. thats a good explanation as to why any link wears a hat. if MC is first and that is the original Link then it explains why all other Links wear a hat. OoT is the start of the kokiri garb, though. Which is the full tunic and the hat.
2 - the BS of the game does not speak of any previous Zelda game.

example - the BS for WW obviously is talking about OoT. the BS for TP is what many believe to be what happens after Link returns to his childhood. the manual BS for FSA talks about FS. many believe that the BS for ALTTP is talking about OoT. every game that has a BS, has a BS that is obviously related to a previous game in the series.

this isnt the case with MC. the BS for MC is not at all related to any other title. also, the hero spoken of in the BS is the hero of men, Gustav...NOT LINK. also, even if you argue that it isnt Gustav in the BS, the hero in the BS still is not wearing a hat. if it was a Link from a previous game than the portraits/glass in the kingdom that shows the legend would have the hero wearing a hat. link is never referred to as the hero of men in any zelda game.
(this was where i went back to the hat idea). The BS for OoT only speaks of the fierce wars. Which obviously isn't tMC.
3 - the BS does not talk about any ONE super evil being. it only talks about an army of creatures. there is no mention of Ganon/dorf or any other higher being which leads many to believe that there is no higher being, just monsters. the hero of men sealed those creatures away. they obviously have a legend thats passed down but this legend never speaks of an evil leader. im also pretty sure that this is the only zelda game that takes place in Hyrule that doesnt have Ganon/dorf in it and if Ganon/dorf had existed before this game, then he would have been mentioned somewhere by someone. (FS too but FS isnt considered to be a full blown game). The fierce wars were just wars amongst the peoples if I remember correctly. I'm a little weak on this argument because I don't know a lot about the fierce wars.

Oh and that logic about Ganon being mentioned is just plain horrible logic. I could say that Vaati is never mentioned in TP. So he hasn't existed yet. It works both ways.
4 - this is Vaati's introduction. Vaati was a picori. he wanted more power so he stole the hat that his master made so he could become a powerful sorcerer. Vaati releases the monsters onto the world from the chest that they once were sealed in. at the end of the game, Vaati is sealed in the chest but the monsters are not. this could explain why Hyrule/the world has monsters to begin with. also, this could explain why no other game has picori in it. after they saw how powerful the picori are and could become, the people could have gotten scared and made them go back to their own world thinking that it is best. we know that the royal family has made a group move out of fear (the gerudo into the gerudo desert) so its possible. if this is the first game in the timeline and the picori are sent back to their world it would explain why they are in no other game. Not much to say here. This is mostly just speculation.
5 - this is a recent theory i came up with so im going to see how it goes with this explanation. the light force is never spoken of in any game. if this power was fought over in ancient times and if this game takes place after WW/PH then why did it take so long to be fought over again? dont you think that Ganon/dorf would be after this power too? its the only game that mentions the light force and a war over the light force. now here is my theory. in the game, the power of the light force is given to Zelda. this could explain why the royal family has magical powers. it is never explained why the ocarina of time has the power it has. what if the royal family used their magic recieved from the light force to give the ocarina power. if we remember correctly, in some of the games the kings seem to have some magic power to them. they obviously dont get their power from a triforce so they have to get it from somewhere. if MC goes first on the timeline, it would help explain why the royal family has the powers that it has. Well, you see, in the japanese versions of tMC, FS and FSA the Light Force and the Force Gems are just called Force. So they're pretty much the same thing.

Here is another problem I have the tWW and FS being first. Why would the seal in FS be completely forgotten about for an entire flood, Link be forgotten about for an entire flood, everything deflooding and then everyone knows what the seal is, then BOOM everyone remembers Link from thousands of years before. It makes no sense what-so-ever.

So which makes more sense to you. Something flat out saying something that wasn't created until tWW, oracles references, the seal on Vaati and the FS actually making sense. Or interperating certain things in a certain way. Which the same arguments can be used on the other side.
Also, no matter what they say in the Japanese version... In the end we all know that the Tetra crew says that they've been only in the Ghost Ship for what,?10 minutes? You see Linebeck in the ending and Link has the hourglass. It still happened.

[Zemen]

OoT is the start of the kokiri garb, though. Which is the full tunic and the hat.

OoT was made before MC. there is absolutely no in game quotes that say there wasnt anyone who wore a green hat and tunic before the kokiri did. what if the kokiri wear those clothes in honor of a past hero? theres no in game quotes saying that they started that outfit.

The BS for OoT only speaks of the fierce wars. Which obviously isn't tMC. The fierce wars were just wars amongst the peoples if I remember correctly. I'm a little weak on this argument because I don't know a lot about the fierce wars.[/QUOTE]

once again, OoT was made before MC so OBVIOUSLY the BS for OoT isnt going to be about a game that isnt created yet and wouldnt be created for many years.


you also said something about some argument for WW being first...i never said WW came first on any timeline. im gonna assume you typod and meant to say MC.

you said that its unlikely everyone would forget Vaati befor flood then just suddently remember after the flood. its the same thing with ganon. the only people that knew who he was after the flood was the king of red lions, the sages and the different gods. no regular person knew of him but something happened where he came back so in games after that they know him. its possible that this could happen with Vaati. he causes trouble, gets sealed, world floods later, defloods, he gets loose thus casuing him to be reintroduced to world just like ganondorf.


ill admit that there are arguments against MC being first but there are also arguments saying that it could be first and please dont talk like what youre saying is fact. it sounds like you know everything perfectly and that MC cant possibly go first and that kind of tone is annoying.

[sign of table]

OoT was made before MC. there is absolutely no in game quotes that say there wasnt anyone who wore a green hat and tunic before the kokiri did. what if the kokiri wear those clothes in honor of a past hero? theres no in game quotes saying that they started that outfit. And there is absolutely no in game quote that says there wasn't anyone who wore a green hat before tMC Link did!
Why would the kokiri wear clothes in honor of a past human hero? Makes no sense and has no proof.
you also said something about some argument for WW being first...i never said WW came first on any timeline. im gonna assume you typod and meant to say MC. Yeah, sorry about that.
you said that its unlikely everyone would forget Vaati befor flood then just suddently remember after the flood. its the same thing with ganon. the only people that knew who he was after the flood was the king of red lions, the sages and the different gods. no regular person knew of him but something happened where he came back so in games after that they know him. its possible that this could happen with Vaati. he causes trouble, gets sealed, world floods later, defloods, he gets loose thus casuing him to be reintroduced to world just like ganondorf. Possible. But you said that fact that tMC and FS don't feature Ganon is proof? TP doesn't even mention Vaati. And TP was released after tMC.
once again, OoT was made before MC so OBVIOUSLY the BS for OoT isnt going to be about a game that isnt created yet and wouldnt be created for many years. Sure, but Aonuma has said he wants to connect the new games to the old games. So they should have made tMC fit with the OoT BS.
ill admit that there are arguments against MC being first but there are also arguments saying that it could be first and please dont talk like what youre saying is fact. it sounds like you know everything perfectly and that MC cant possibly go first and that kind of tone is annoying.
tMC could go first. But there is almost no evidence for it. And the exact same evidence for it can be used for OoT to go first.

Also there is evidence for it to go after.

The fact that it takes place in a flooded land. The reference to the oracles. The triumph forks. That is all solid evidence for tMC to go on the AT after tWW. The evidence for it to go first can be used for OoT to go first, too.

[Smertios]

1 - this is what most people consider to be the weakest reason so ill start with it. the hat. you start off with no hat. you play the game with a hat like creature on your head. after you save him from being a hat permanantly he gives you a hat saying it suits you. its the only game in the series where you dont start out with the hat and then recieve it saying that the hero of legends wore it.

example - in WW you dont start out with any of the clothing but when you do recieve it you are told that the hero of time wore a similar outfit.

this doesnt happen in MC. no one tells you that an ancient hero wore a hat like that. he just gives it to you because he thinks it suits you. thats a good explanation as to why any link wears a hat. if MC is first and that is the original Link then it explains why all other Links wear a hat.

i will be coming back to this idea a little bit later.

It is a good point you have, but why only the hat then? Why not tell the story of how Link got the whole green clothes?


2 - the BS of the game does not speak of any previous Zelda game.

example - the BS for WW obviously is talking about OoT. the BS for TP is what many believe to be what happens after Link returns to his childhood. the manual BS for FSA talks about FS. many believe that the BS for ALTTP is talking about OoT. every game that has a BS, has a BS that is obviously related to a previous game in the series.

this isnt the case with MC. the BS for MC is not at all related to any other title. also, the hero spoken of in the BS is the hero of men, Gustav...NOT LINK. also, even if you argue that it isnt Gustav in the BS, the hero in the BS still is not wearing a hat. if it was a Link from a previous game than the portraits/glass in the kingdom that shows the legend would have the hero wearing a hat. link is never referred to as the hero of men in any zelda game.
(this was where i went back to the hat idea).

The BS of FS also doesn't mention any game. Neither does the LoZ BS nor the AoL BS.

Only games that are logical sequels do so...


3 - the BS does not talk about any ONE super evil being. it only talks about an army of creatures. there is no mention of Ganon/dorf or any other higher being which leads many to believe that there is no higher being, just monsters. the hero of men sealed those creatures away. they obviously have a legend thats passed down but this legend never speaks of an evil leader. im also pretty sure that this is the only zelda game that takes place in Hyrule that doesnt have Ganon/dorf in it and if Ganon/dorf had existed before this game, then he would have been mentioned somewhere by someone. (FS too but FS isnt considered to be a full blown game).

I have to give you this. The OoT BS and TP BS also mention wars with no specific major villains, but since those would have happened bfore OoT, that can't be used as an example.

But please notice that originally, LttP BS (about the IW) didn't mention ganon at all...


4 - this is Vaati's introduction. Vaati was a picori. he wanted more power so he stole the hat that his master made so he could become a powerful sorcerer. Vaati releases the monsters onto the world from the chest that they once were sealed in. at the end of the game, Vaati is sealed in the chest but the monsters are not. this could explain why Hyrule/the world has monsters to begin with. also, this could explain why no other game has picori in it. after they saw how powerful the picori are and could become, the people could have gotten scared and made them go back to their own world thinking that it is best. we know that the royal family has made a group move out of fear (the gerudo into the gerudo desert) so its possible. if this is the first game in the timeline and the picori are sent back to their world it would explain why they are in no other game.

Well, the fact that the monsters (and I think the only monsters trapped in the chest were moblins, goriyas etc, not normal animals like octorocks) were there before being sealed into the bound chest by the Hero of Men makes this point invalid. It's pretty logical to assume that they were trapped in TMC BS and then released in TMC, not influencing any other games.

And the picori could have come to the "normal" world anytime. They could have traveled between TWW and TMC and then left again in the end of TMC. So, even though I have to agree that it's plausible, I don't think this point s conclusive. and please notice that we don't really see a lot of peoples/races anywhere in other games (the rito, the wind tribe, the oocca, the anouki, the yooks/yetis etc.)


5 - this is a recent theory i came up with so im going to see how it goes with this explanation. the light force is never spoken of in any game. if this power was fought over in ancient times and if this game takes place after WW/PH then why did it take so long to be fought over again? dont you think that Ganon/dorf would be after this power too? its the only game that mentions the light force and a war over the light force. now here is my theory. in the game, the power of the light force is given to Zelda. this could explain why the royal family has magical powers. it is never explained why the ocarina of time has the power it has. what if the royal family used their magic recieved from the light force to give the ocarina power. if we remember correctly, in some of the games the kings seem to have some magic power to them. they obviously dont get their power from a triforce so they have to get it from somewhere. if MC goes first on the timeline, it would help explain why the royal family has the powers that it has.

this isnt really meant to be an argument just a theory i came up with.

Well, the Light Force was pretty much residing in the Picori Realm before TMC BS. That would explain why it doesn't appear in any game that comes before TMC in my timeline. I don't know what happened after it, but you should have in mind that the Force Gems from FSA (or TWW? i don't really know) are called the same as the Light Force in japanese. And apparently in some other game (i don't really know much about this subject, but i can research it later) there is something called Life Force in the american version that has the same japanese name as the Light Force and the Force Gems.

So I don't really think the Light Force is such a powerfull/important iten...


you wanted me to explain why it could go first on a timeline. there ya go.

I agree that it's valid evidence, but none of them is really conclusive (but, again, neither are the ones i gave you), so I have to say that, even though I accept that TMC can come first in the timeline, I don't believe it for the reasons i posted already. You believe so for the reasons you said, which I think are valid. So I'd say that we can't really know for sure where TMC comes. It can be before OoT, after TWW or after TP...


Smertios, what Red Zoras are you referring to, in PH?The Zora Warriors that fight like Dark Nuts?

Yes, they are identical to the ones from LttP, except for the swords and shields and the different battle style.

I don't know if there rae any dark nuts in PH though, because i only played till the wind island and I only found one of those zoras to be honest.


Also, no matter what they say in the Japanese version... In the end we all know that the Tetra crew says that they've been only in the Ghost Ship for what,?10 minutes?

I have to give you that, but we see Lineback with the hourglass, so I'd say that the events really happened, even though time was slower there.


Even though I don't really agree with your timeline, you raised some good points, and I must congrat you about that, smertios

Thank you. As I said, currently we don't have any conclusive evidence to place most of the games. I'd say that TMC and FS can indeed come before OoT and the 2 games can come either in the CT or in the AT. There is evidence for both placements...


OoT was made before MC. there is absolutely no in game quotes that say there wasnt anyone who wore a green hat and tunic before the kokiri did. what if the kokiri wear those clothes in honor of a past hero? theres no in game quotes saying that they started that outfit.

The same could be said about TMC, they don't say that it was the first time ever that a hero used a green cap...


once again, OoT was made before MC so OBVIOUSLY the BS for OoT isnt going to be about a game that isnt created yet and wouldnt be created for many years.

Well, Lttp was also created before OoT, but they made sure to make it clear that OoT is LttP BS...


you said that its unlikely everyone would forget Vaati befor flood then just suddently remember after the flood. its the same thing with ganon. the only people that knew who he was after the flood was the king of red lions, the sages and the different gods. no regular person knew of him but something happened where he came back so in games after that they know him. its possible that this could happen with Vaati. he causes trouble, gets sealed, world floods later, defloods, he gets loose thus casuing him to be reintroduced to world just like ganondorf.

It's perfectly possible that a new Ganondorf was born after TWW. It happens a lot with Link, Zelda and Impa.

Or he could have been ressurected and caused trouble, that way people would know about him after the flood. OoX and AoL make it clear that ressurections are possible.


ill admit that there are arguments against MC being first but there are also arguments saying that it could be first and please dont talk like what youre saying is fact. it sounds like you know everything perfectly and that MC cant possibly go first and that kind of tone is annoying.

After you theorize about the same timeline for a while you start to state your beliefs as facts. It's natural even though it's wrong. But that doesn't make your beliefs either better or worse than mine. So i agree with you there.

And don't get too mad at SoJ, he just likes a good discussion and sometimes he sounds arrogant about it, but he is not. He is just like that when he is arguing about something. I had to get used to that...


Sure, but Aonuma has said he wants to connect the new games to the old games. So they should have made tMC fit with the OoT BS. tMC could go first. But there is almost no evidence for it. And the exact same evidence for it can be used for OoT to go first.

I wouldn't say that there is almost no evidence for TMC to go first, but that about Aonuma is a good point.

Like, when they created FS (and Nintendo didn't have much to do with that), i believe that the idea was to have a multiplayer zelda spinoff, with no connections to the timeline at all. When they released TMC, it was clearly supposed to be a prequel to FS (with easter eggs from other zelda games, like TWW, OoX and LoZ), but still not part of the 'canon' timeline.

When Nintendo created FSA though (2 years later), they decided to make it timeline relevant, adding many connections to LttP. Recently discovered removed text from the game shows that there was supposed to be a triforce in the game and that it was indeed the IW. But they removed that at request of Miyamoto.

So the original idea could have been to take LttP (and possibly LA) out of the 'main' timeline and create an alternative timeline that would start with FS (later TMC) as first and then it would go as TMCbs-TMC-FSbs-FS/FSA-LttP/(LA), but they never really stated anything else about that.

And please notice that Aonuma said that they 'were thinking' of making FS the oldest tale of Hyrule, but he never said anything about a conclusion. (FS was clearly supposed to be just a mere spinoff with no storyline purposes before they decided to make FSA.) And, of course, when he said that about FS, TMC was already being developed (it was released in the same year). That's why I think that he wanted to make the timeline go something like this:
TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA
...../-TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL
OoT
.....\MM-TP
with OoX coming absolutely anywhere. That's what I believe he meant when he said that he "is working" on a timeline. He probably gave up that idea to reconsider the original intent (and, hopefully, place TMC-FS/FSA in the main timeline again).


The fact that it takes place in a flooded land. The reference to the oracles. The triumph forks. That is all solid evidence for tMC to go on the AT after tWW.

Solid, definitely; but arguably conclusive. Everything is circunstancial, even though I believe that it's what makes more sense now.


The evidence for it to go first can be used for OoT to go first, too.

This is true...

[Skull_Kid]

And there is absolutely no in game quote that says there wasn't anyone who wore a green hat before tMC Link did!
Why would the kokiri wear clothes in honor of a past human hero? Makes no sense and has no proof. Yeah, sorry about that. Possible. But you said that fact that tMC and FS don't feature Ganon is proof? TP doesn't even mention Vaati. And TP was released after tMC. Sure, but Aonuma has said he wants to connect the new games to the old games. So they should have made tMC fit with the OoT BS. tMC could go first. But there is almost no evidence for it. And the exact same evidence for it can be used for OoT to go first.

Also there is evidence for it to go after.

The fact that it takes place in a flooded land. The reference to the oracles. The triumph forks. That is all solid evidence for tMC to go on the AT after tWW. The evidence for it to go first can be used for OoT to go first, too.

it is self implied in the story of MC. Before Link, the only known hero was Gustaf, the Hero of the MEN!
Not Hero of Time, Nor hero of the Winds, but the hero of Time, also, notice that, while he still has the green tunic, he wears no cap.
Also, Notice that apart from the reference of the Triumph Forks(that I still think is an easter egg), no other thing proves that there are games before it on the timeline.
The quotes about the oracles, only prove that, probably since the Triforce was left on Hyrule by the Godesses, there has been Oracles.
Also notice that either Link or Zelda have any Triforce piece(even though Zelda has the Light Force, wich can be assumed to be the Triforce of Wisdom, but I found it very unlikely, cause people were aware of the Triforce, thus, explaining all the Triforce carvings throughout Hyrule Castle Town.
So, my though is that the Triforce and the Light Force ARE separate things.

[Smertios]

it is self implied in the story of MC. Before Link, the only known hero was Gustaf, the Hero of the MEN!
Not Hero of Time, Nor hero of the Winds, but the hero of Time, also, notice that, while he still has the green tunic, he wears no cap.


Hmm, you mind if I ask why you say that Gustaf is the HoM with such confidence? I don't think that's stated in-game at all. Some people believe him to be Swiftblade I and others believe him to be a previous incarnation of Link. I never heard any theory about him being Gustaf...

Also, there is no other hero mentioned in LoZ BS, should that game come first too then?


So, my though is that the Triforce and the Light Force ARE separate things.

I see, i thought you were arguing that they were the same thing. My bad. I think it's Zemen who thinks so, right?

[sign of table]

it is self implied in the story of MC. Before Link, the only known hero was Gustaf, the Hero of the MEN!
Not Hero of Time, Nor hero of the Winds, but the hero of Time, also, notice that, while he still has the green tunic, he wears no cap.
Also, Notice that apart from the reference of the Triumph Forks(that I still think is an easter egg), no other thing proves that there are games before it on the timeline.
The quotes about the oracles, only prove that, probably since the Triforce was left on Hyrule by the Godesses, there has been Oracles.
Also notice that either Link or Zelda have any Triforce piece(even though Zelda has the Light Force, wich can be assumed to be the Triforce of Wisdom, but I found it very unlikely, cause people were aware of the Triforce, thus, explaining all the Triforce carvings throughout Hyrule Castle Town.
So, my though is that the Triforce and the Light Force ARE separate things.
You need to stop watching Gametrailers Zelda retrospective part 6. They made up that bit about Gustaf. Yes, there is a hero of Men but nothing in game EVER suggests that Gustaf was that hero.
Not hero of time or hero of winds but the hero of time? You mean hero of men, I'm sure. LttP makes no mention to any hero. OMG IT HAS TO BE BEFORE EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER A HERO!!!1!1!!!!!

Who here thinks that the Light Force and the Triforce are the same thing?

[Zemen]

i definitely never said that the triforce and light force are the same. in every thread discussing it i argued they were different things. even is this thread i said i believed they are different.

[sign of table]

Ok good. Can you reply to my post please?

[Zemen]

Ok good. Can you reply to my post please?

ok. i dont know what gametrailer youre talking about, but when i played MC i know that the back story talks about the hero of men and gustav. youre right, maybe they arent the same person but the argument still stands that link was never referred to as the hero of men in any game, nor was there any game where he doesnt have the green hat and the pictures of the hero of men clearly shows the hero without a hat.

you said that just because a games back story doesnt talk about link doesnt mean much. there is a difference between a back story that talks about no hero at all and a back story that talks about a hero that is clearly not link and MC is clearly either A) not link or B) not a link from any game thats been created.

seeing as how the creators have never made a game where the BS didnt talk about link or a war, i would assume that we are meant to assume its not link.

also, later on in MC you do end up talking to Gustav and i could swear he mentoned something about sealing monsters away or fighting in the war (ill research that and get back to you).

and im not the only one who has gotten the gist that Gustav is the hero of men.


THIS IS SOMETHING I JUST THOUGHT OF!!

he sword is called the white sword before it gets its power in MC. i know that someone made the argument that you never see the four sword in any other game. the white sword IS the four sword before it has its power and the white sword IS in other zelda games! not sure if that changes your mind at all about anything but im just pointing out that the FS series games are not the only games that have the picori sword/four sword/white sword. its in LoZ. its the second strongest sword in the game. this obviously means its an important weapon. it had to come from somewhere and it has the same name as the sword in MC.

[sign of table]

seeing as how the creators have never made a game where the BS didnt talk about link or a war, i would assume that we are meant to assume its not link. They've had plenty of backstories that don't involve a Link. Not so much with wars, though. But tMC has a war as its BS too. It isn't evidence that the fact that the tMC BS isn't mentioned in any other game. It has no proof as true evidence and it can be used on both sides. The Fierce Wars aren't part of any game. The Interloper Wars aren't part of any game. And there are heroes in the series that are exclusive to only the BS of that game.

[Zemen]

They've had plenty of backstories that don't involve a Link. Not so much with wars, though. But tMC has a war as its BS too. It isn't evidence that the fact that the tMC BS isn't mentioned in any other game. It has no proof as true evidence and it can be used on both sides. The Fierce Wars aren't part of any game. The Interloper Wars aren't part of any game. And there are heroes in the series that are exclusive to only the BS of that game.

not really sure what youre saying here.

this is my point. all Zelda games have a BS either about a hero from a previous game (link) or about a war so it doesnt have to be about a previous game.

MC has a BS that is about a war BUT is also about ONE hero that is obviously not Link. also, this previous hero doesnt wear a hat. if it was a link, then it was obviously a previous link that didint wear a hat which means the first hat link would get would be in MC which would put MC first.

[sign of table]

So what if the previous hero wasn't a Link? Not all heroes are Link...

There are plenty of backstories that don't involve a war or a Link. Hell the only backstories that even mention Link are the ones that are direct sequels. OoT/MM, tWW/PH, (OoX or LttP)/LA. Hmm FSA mentions Link when it refers to FS. Nah they can't be sequels. The maps look too similar and the state of everything is the exact same. /endsarcasm

There are heroes in the backstories of a couple games that don't refer to Link. I don't see how that is actually evidence...

[Skull_Kid]

So what if the previous hero wasn't a Link? Not all heroes are Link...

There are plenty of backstories that don't involve a war or a Link. Hell the only backstories that even mention Link are the ones that are direct sequels. OoT/MM, tWW/PH, (OoX or LttP)/LA. Hmm FSA mentions Link when it refers to FS. Nah they can't be sequels. The maps look too similar and the state of everything is the exact same. /endsarcasm

There are heroes in the backstories of a couple games that don't refer to Link. I don't see how that is actually evidence...

Not exactly... The fact that it mentions the "HERO OF MEN" implies a lot that there weren't any Heroes of [insert name here] before, no Links before Gustaf... also, notice that the fact that Gustaf is also dressed in a green tunic, is to symbolize courage.But there is no hat. The game is full of symbolisms, hinting at the fact that it is the first in the timeline

[Zemen]

So what if the previous hero wasn't a Link? Not all heroes are Link...

There are plenty of backstories that don't involve a war or a Link. Hell the only backstories that even mention Link are the ones that are direct sequels. OoT/MM, tWW/PH, (OoX or LttP)/LA. Hmm FSA mentions Link when it refers to FS. Nah they can't be sequels. The maps look too similar and the state of everything is the exact same. /endsarcasm

There are heroes in the backstories of a couple games that don't refer to Link. I don't see how that is actually evidence...

yes, those games mention link in the BS but every game that doesnt has a BS about a war or something. you keep saying there are games that have BS' about other heros so it would be awesome if you showed me one of these because i dont recall any other heros being talked of that arent sages or something "divine" like that. this BS talks about one specific hero in the past who is not Link. Link was never called hero of men. the picture of this hero is wearing green but no hat. this implies that no heros wore the hat before MC took place when we see Link get the hat. it doesnt talk about this hero of men defeating one super evil guy. it talks about him sealing monsters away. it seems to be a popular legend as the land of hyrule celebrates the picori who helped the hero of men save the world. im pretty sure that it makes sense for it to go first unless between WW/PH and MC some HUGE event (like the BS of MC lets say) happened but instead of making a game about it, nintendo decided to just skip that because they didnt feel like it. end sarcasm.

[sign of table]

Not exactly... The fact that it mentions the "HERO OF MEN" implies a lot that there weren't any Heroes of [insert name here] before, no Links before Gustaf... also, notice that the fact that Gustaf is also dressed in a green tunic, is to symbolize courage.But there is no hat. The game is full of symbolisms, hinting at the fact that it is the first in the timeline That doesn't imply a thing. With that logic the fact that OoT and TP don't mention a hero they should go first.

And wasn't Gustaf the fat dead king dude? He didn't wear a green tunic.
yes, those games mention link in the BS but every game that doesnt has a BS about a war or something. you keep saying there are games that have BS' about other heros so it would be awesome if you showed me one of these because i dont recall any other heros being talked of that arent sages or something "divine" like that. this BS talks about one specific hero in the past who is not Link. Link was never called hero of men. the picture of this hero is wearing green but no hat. this implies that no heros wore the hat before MC 1) That doesn't imply anything 2) That logic can go both ways. I can say that Link wearing the kokiri garb implies that is where the garb tradition started. But I don't because it is fail logic. 3) Lyphos in TRR is not mentioned in any other game. He is a hero.

Just because one hero, who wasn't Link, doesn't wear a hat doesn't mean that it is the first.

The fact is that the hat isn't proof. I'm sorry but it isn't. It makes a nice explanation for the hat. But OoT also makes a nice explanation for the entire tunic. TMC does not give an explanation for the tunic.

Here I'll give you an example of how ridiculous it is to think that the hat is proof.

It would be like saying that because the bible gives an explanation about our creation proves that god exists. You see what I mean? (Btw I don't want to start a religious debate. I just want to show how failfull that logic is.)

So let's list the proof for the placement of tMC.

TMC first.
Only one hero mentioned could imply from a certain point of view in a certain context that there haven't been heroes before. Implication

An explanation for why heroes wear hats. Implication

The fact that the Hero of Men doesn't wear a hat. Even though he isn't Link. Implication

A quote from a person who didn't work on the game he is talking about before the game was even finished. Also ignoring the obvious implications of a more recent game. Some-what proof

The fact that Ganon isn't mentioned could imply that Ganon has never appeared before. Implication

OoT first.
No hero mentioned could imply from a certain point of view in a certain context that there haven't been heroes before. Implication

An explanation for why heroes wear tunics. Implication

The fact that no hero before has ever worn a tunic; because the tunic wasn't founded until the kokiri. Implication

A quote from a person who did work on the game after the game was made. Proof

The fact that Vaati wasn't mentioned in either OoT or TP could imply that Vaati hasn't appeared yet. Implication

tMC to NOT be first

A word that isn't even founded until tWW is said. Proof.

Labrynna's existence. Proof

An ocean surrounding it. Implication/somewhat proof

The implication for the FS series to be direct sequels to each-other. Implication.

FS and FSA take place in a flooded land. Implication/somewhat proof

The entire "tMC first" argument is completely based on viewing things from a certain point of view to see an implication and those exact same implications can be seen from the same point of view for OoT first. Atleast OoT first has solid proof.

[Zemen]

That doesn't imply a thing. With that logic the fact that OoT and TP don't mention a hero they should go first.

And wasn't Gustaf the fat dead king dude? He didn't wear a green tunic. 1) That doesn't imply anything 2) That logic can go both ways. I can say that Link wearing the kokiri garb implies that is where the garb tradition started. But I don't because it is fail logic. 3) Lyphos in TRR is not mentioned in any other game. He is a hero.

Just because one hero, who wasn't Link, doesn't wear a hat doesn't mean that it is the first.

The fact is that the hat isn't proof. I'm sorry but it isn't. It makes a nice explanation for the hat. But OoT also makes a nice explanation for the entire tunic. TMC does not give an explanation for the tunic.

Here I'll give you an example of how ridiculous it is to think that the hat is proof.

It would be like saying that because the bible gives an explanation about our creation proves that god exists. You see what I mean? (Btw I don't want to start a religious debate. I just want to show how failfull that logic is.)

So let's list the proof for the placement of tMC.

TMC first.
Only one hero mentioned could imply from a certain point of view in a certain context that there haven't been heroes before. Implication

An explanation for why heroes wear hats. Implication

The fact that the Hero of Men doesn't wear a hat. Even though he isn't Link. Implication

A quote from a person who didn't work on the game he is talking about before the game was even finished. Also ignoring the obvious implications of a more recent game. Some-what proof

The fact that Ganon isn't mentioned could imply that Ganon has never appeared before. Implication

OoT first.
No hero mentioned could imply from a certain point of view in a certain context that there haven't been heroes before. Implication

An explanation for why heroes wear tunics. Implication

The fact that no hero before has ever worn a tunic; because the tunic wasn't founded until the kokiri. Implication

A quote from a person who did work on the game after the game was made. Proof

The fact that Vaati wasn't mentioned in either OoT or TP could imply that Vaati hasn't appeared yet. Implication

tMC to NOT be first

A word that isn't even founded until tWW is said. Proof.

Labrynna's existence. Proof

An ocean surrounding it. Implication/somewhat proof

The implication for the FS series to be direct sequels to each-other. Implication.

FS and FSA take place in a flooded land. Implication/somewhat proof

The entire "tMC first" argument is completely based on viewing things from a certain point of view to see an implication and those exact same implications can be seen from the same point of view for OoT first. Atleast OoT first has solid proof.

youre sitting here arguing that a game MANY years before MC goes first on the timeline. OoT was made way before MC was every thought of and maybe they did plan on OoT being first until they came out with other ideas later. obviously OoT isnt going to have any connections with MC because it was made WAY before MC. you also keep saying that OoT can show us where the green tunic and hat come from. the game never once says that no one before them wore that outfit. in fact, no one in OoT even says ANYTHING about links outfit so i dont understand why you think that game would explain its origins. in MC they actually mention the hat and in the BS, whether or not its a past Link, he IS OBVIOUSLY wearing a green tunic but he is not wearing a green hat. this leads me to beleive that this person is the first hero to wear a green tunic. in MC, you start off with a green tunic. this could be because that day, link decided to wear green instead of red. but they actually explain the freaking hat. now here is a new example for you since this isnt getting through to you.

you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down? technically that would be like the greatest hero the world has ever known since he saved the great sea world AND started a new Hyrule, but this legend is not mentioned, or even found in a book at the library that you love talking about so much. if MC takes place in the new Hyrule, then how come there is no mention of tetra and the hero of winds? MC was made closely after WW which would mean that if it was to fit into a timeline RIGHT after WW/PH then there should a much more obvious connection because as you said, they go back and change little details to make it fit into a timeline. the fact that the "triforks" are mentioned in a book in a different language is about as important to me as the hat is to you. where are the books on the hero of winds? i would think that would be much more important but i have yet to hear one argument from you that isnt about an ocean under the sky temple or the triforks. both are very very terrible arguments. that argument is about as good as saying it goes after WW/PH because they used the toon link design. i hate people who say that.

so here is my argument.

MC First because you get a hat without anyone telling you that the founder of new hyrule, the hero of winds, had a hat just like it. i would think that someone would be like "hey youre wearing what our great and wonderous founder wore back in the day!"

MC First because no previous link is mentioned anywhere, and as i said, the hero of winds was the founder (along with tetra) of this new Hyrule. he was known for saving the world from ganondorf, but this isnt mentioned anywhere? interesting.

MC First because there is no mention of a previous evil. only monsters.

[sign of table]

you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down? technically that would be like the greatest hero the world has ever known since he saved the great sea world AND started a new Hyrule, but this legend is not mentioned, or even found in a book at the library that you love talking about so much. if MC takes place in the new Hyrule, then how come there is no mention of tetra and the hero of winds? MC was made closely after WW which would mean that if it was to fit into a timeline RIGHT after WW/PH then there should a much more obvious connection because as you said, they go back and change little details to make it fit into a timeline. the fact that the "triforks" are mentioned in a book in a different language is about as important to me as the hat is to you. where are the books on the hero of winds? i would think that would be much more important but i have yet to hear one argument from you that isnt about an ocean under the sky temple or the triforks. both are very very terrible arguments. that argument is about as good as saying it goes after WW/PH because they used the toon link design. i hate people who say that. The wall of text... it burns!!!!


you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down? Good point. But I must also ask something of you too. Why isn't the story of the Hero of Men or the hero from tMC ever passed down in TP? He saved the world too. And on the CT they would be the only heroes as well.
MC First because you get a hat without anyone telling you that the founder of new hyrule, the hero of winds, had a hat just like it. i would think that someone would be like "hey youre wearing what our great and wonderous founder wore back in the day!" OoT first because in TP you get a tunic and it doesn't imply anything about tMC. Only OoT starting the tunic.
MC First because no previous link is mentioned anywhere, and as i said, the hero of winds was the founder (along with tetra) of this new Hyrule. he was known for saving the world from ganondorf, but this isnt mentioned anywhere? interesting. OoT first because TP makes no mention of a previous hero.

TMC Link was known for defeating Vaati and saving the world from him. This isn't mentioned anywhere? Interesting...

Oh and the only people who even knew of Ganondorf were the King of Red Lions, Tetra and Link. (Maybe the pirate crew did. I can't quite remember) Ganondorf died and so did the KoRL.

So my vague, pointless implication uses the exact same logic as yours, but mine works.
MC First because there is no mention of a previous evil. only monsters. Technically the same would be if tMC was directly after tWW. Actually with tMC as the first game in new hyrule I can use all of the same perks of tMC being first. And OoT being first. Plus factual non-implication evidence.


With evidence OoT being first is better and more evidenced. You can't deny that. It's like saying that LttP-LA has more evidence and is a better placement than OoX-LA. OoX-LA has far more evidence. OoT first has far more evidence. I don't care whether you choose to believe in tMC-OoT. I do care, however, that you admit there is more overall evidence and that your argument relies soley on pure unevidenced implications.

Sorry if I come off rude. This debate is just getting a little irritating when all that happens is:
You present un-evidenced implications.
I show how those exact implications can work for my timeline. Then I show you true evidence.
You don't mention that the implications can work for my timeline. You then say that my evidence is too old.
I show evidence more recent than your evidence and show how pointless those implications are.
You don't acknowledge my evidence then re-present your implications.

It's just going around in circles. So don't take my irritation personally. I'm just a little tired of this debate and not having my evidence acknowledged.

[sign of table]

you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down? technically that would be like the greatest hero the world has ever known since he saved the great sea world AND started a new Hyrule, but this legend is not mentioned, or even found in a book at the library that you love talking about so much. if MC takes place in the new Hyrule, then how come there is no mention of tetra and the hero of winds? MC was made closely after WW which would mean that if it was to fit into a timeline RIGHT after WW/PH then there should a much more obvious connection because as you said, they go back and change little details to make it fit into a timeline. the fact that the "triforks" are mentioned in a book in a different language is about as important to me as the hat is to you. where are the books on the hero of winds? i would think that would be much more important but i have yet to hear one argument from you that isnt about an ocean under the sky temple or the triforks. both are very very terrible arguments. that argument is about as good as saying it goes after WW/PH because they used the toon link design. i hate people who say that. The wall of text... it burns!!!!


you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down? Good point. But I must also ask something of you too. Why isn't the story of the Hero of Men or the hero from tMC ever passed down in TP? He saved the world too. And on the CT they would be the only heroes as well.
MC First because you get a hat without anyone telling you that the founder of new hyrule, the hero of winds, had a hat just like it. i would think that someone would be like "hey youre wearing what our great and wonderous founder wore back in the day!" OoT first because in TP you get a tunic and it doesn't imply anything about tMC. Only OoT starting the tunic.
MC First because no previous link is mentioned anywhere, and as i said, the hero of winds was the founder (along with tetra) of this new Hyrule. he was known for saving the world from ganondorf, but this isnt mentioned anywhere? interesting. OoT first because TP makes no mention of a previous hero.

TMC Link was known for defeating Vaati and saving the world from him. This isn't mentioned anywhere? Interesting...

Oh and the only people who even knew of Ganondorf were the King of Red Lions, Tetra and Link. (Maybe the pirate crew did. I can't quite remember) Ganondorf died and so did the KoRL.

So my vague, pointless implication uses the exact same logic as yours, but mine works.
MC First because there is no mention of a previous evil. only monsters. Technically the same would be if tMC was directly after tWW. Actually with tMC as the first game in new hyrule I can use all of the same perks of tMC being first. And OoT being first. Plus factual non-implication evidence.


With evidence OoT being first is better and more evidenced. You can't deny that. It's like saying that LttP-LA has more evidence and is a better placement than OoX-LA. OoX-LA has far more evidence. OoT first has far more evidence. I don't care whether you choose to believe in tMC-OoT. I do care, however, that you admit there is more overall evidence and that your argument relies soley on pure unevidenced implications.

Sorry if I come off rude. This debate is just getting a little irritating when all that happens is:
You present un-evidenced implications.
I show how those exact implications can work for my timeline. Then I show you true evidence.
You don't mention that the implications can work for my timeline. You then say that my evidence is too old.
I show evidence more recent than your evidence and show how pointless those implications are.
You don't acknowledge my evidence then re-present your implications.

It's just going around in circles. So don't take my irritation personally. I'm just a little tired of this debate and not having my evidence acknowledged.

[MrMosley]

Sign, my timeline had about the same basic idea that MC took place in the new Hyrule, so on that I can pretty much agree. But where is the "more evidence" that LA is a sequel to OoX than evidence of LA being a sequel to ALttP. Judging by the manual of LA, ALttP was its direct prequel. I can find no way that LA would be a sequel to OoX besides the end scene with Link on a boat, but to me that dosen't proove anything other than he had to sail back to Hyrule.

Heres how my timeline was set up:

(splits to Adult Timeline) WW--PH--MC--FS--FSA
OoT
(Splits to Child Timeline) MM--TP--ALttP--LA--OoX--LoZ--AoL

[Zemen]

The wall of text... it burns!!!!

Good point. But I must also ask something of you too. Why isn't the story of the Hero of Men or the hero from tMC ever passed down in TP? He saved the world too. And on the CT they would be the only heroes as well. OoT first because in TP you get a tunic and it doesn't imply anything about tMC. Only OoT starting the tunic. OoT first because TP makes no mention of a previous hero.

TMC Link was known for defeating Vaati and saving the world from him. This isn't mentioned anywhere? Interesting...

Oh and the only people who even knew of Ganondorf were the King of Red Lions, Tetra and Link. (Maybe the pirate crew did. I can't quite remember) Ganondorf died and so did the KoRL.

So my vague, pointless implication uses the exact same logic as yours, but mine works. Technically the same would be if tMC was directly after tWW. Actually with tMC as the first game in new hyrule I can use all of the same perks of tMC being first. And OoT being first. Plus factual non-implication evidence.


With evidence OoT being first is better and more evidenced. You can't deny that. It's like saying that LttP-LA has more evidence and is a better placement than OoX-LA. OoX-LA has far more evidence. OoT first has far more evidence. I don't care whether you choose to believe in tMC-OoT. I do care, however, that you admit there is more overall evidence and that your argument relies soley on pure unevidenced implications.

Sorry if I come off rude. This debate is just getting a little irritating when all that happens is:
You present un-evidenced implications.
I show how those exact implications can work for my timeline. Then I show you true evidence.
You don't mention that the implications can work for my timeline. You then say that my evidence is too old.
I show evidence more recent than your evidence and show how pointless those implications are.
You don't acknowledge my evidence then re-present your implications.

It's just going around in circles. So don't take my irritation personally. I'm just a little tired of this debate and not having my evidence acknowledged.

why would the back story of TP talk about MC? you assume that because i put MC first then the child timeline should have more mention of it. that is not the case at all. MC is about Vaati and the picori blade. TP is about Ganondorf and the master sword so why would TP have a back story about MC if the game has absolutely nothing to do with any of the events of MC. the game is an obvious sequel to OoT much like WW is so its going to focus on the events of OoT. the game is about the twili realm and ganondorf who survived an execution that happened after OoT. i dont understand why they would have to mention MC anywhere if nothing in MC relates to TP. there was no ganondorf or master sword or twilight realm so why would that game be brought up? it would have been irrelevant to the entire game if MC was the back story, but according to your placement of MC, there would be a lot of connections but these connections are NEVER made obvious. if its the new Hyrule why is there no mention anywhere of the founders or the fact that there was an old Hyrule? you assume that link and tetra wouldnt tell people their story. i dont think people would just start following a pirate who says she is a princess without any story or evidence to back that up. and i know for a fact that link, tetra, the pirates and the king of red lions were not the only ones who knew that ganondorf existed. there were the great fairies, key people throughout the game that help you along your quest (the korok and the rito who help you). and im assuming that if the people who help you know of your quest they would tell others of your quest especially AFTER you save them. this great event happened. people knew monsters and stuff were attacking them and people knew that link was trying to do something about it. maybe not everyone knew but more than the people you named knew what was going on. maybe they didnt know about hyrule but i would hope that tetra/zelda would tell them the story otherwise they would be dumb to follow her because all they would know is that she SAYS she is a princess with no proof. but wait...none of this is mentioned anywhere in MC. there is no mention of a great sea. there is no mention of a previous Hyrule. there is no mention of a flood or deflooding period. there is no mention of link and tetra who supposedly started this new hyrule. and whats this? theres not mention of ganondorf who is the reason why they needed new land to begin with?!

i rest my case. you can argue this all you want but im done. IMO, my evidence for why MC should go first is much stronger than why you put it after WW. you have my answer. you know my argument. this is going no where so im done.

[Smertios]

Sign, my timeline had about the same basic idea that MC took place in the new Hyrule, so on that I can pretty much agree. But where is the "more evidence" that LA is a sequel to OoX than evidence of LA being a sequel to ALttP. Judging by the manual of LA, ALttP was its direct prequel. I can find no way that LA would be a sequel to OoX besides the end scene with Link on a boat, but to me that dosen't proove anything other than he had to sail back to Hyrule.

Heres how my timeline was set up:

(splits to Adult Timeline) WW--PH--MC--FS--FSA
OoT
(Splits to Child Timeline) MM--TP--ALttP--LA--OoX--LoZ--AoL

Pretty nice. So you don't trust Miyamoto when he said that OoT is the Imprisoning War? I know that some people don't, by arguing that FSA retconned that by itself being the IW, but you don't have FSA before LttP for that...

[Skull_Kid]

Pretty nice. So you don't trust Miyamoto when he said that OoT is the Imprisoning War? I know that some people don't, by arguing that FSA retconned that by itself being the IW, but you don't have FSA before LttP for that...

Something about OoT being the Imprisoning War smells too Fishy!
If it is the Imprisoning war, then Nintendo did an epic fail, because, it is more like a war of One against a lot of people!
But I am not going against the thoughts of the creator, if he says so, then it is

[sign of table]

And the IW/SW is implied to be the first time the triforce leaves the SR. The sleeping Zelda story features the First Generation Zelda. It also features the Triforce. So that means if LoZ/AoL is on the CT no other game can go before OoT.

Oh and... damn I forgot to reply to that bit about LA. Here we go

LA takes place in the Wind Fish's dream. But he obviously shares the dream so for the most part a lot of the stuff seen in there is from Link. Probably things from Link's life. The manual works for both OoX-LA and LttP-LA.

13 or 14 exclusive enemies between OoX and LA. 2-5 exlusive enemies for LttP-LA. Exclusives mean enemies that don't appear in any other game. I'm too lazy to recount how many total enemies shared between OoX and LA and LttP. IIRC it was 60 for OoX-LA and like 35-40 for LttP-LA.

Then there is the boat. There is more overall evidence for OoX-LA. You may not choose to believe all of the evidence. But counting everything there is more evidence for OoX-LA.

[MrMosley]

Honestly I can't think of any ememies right off that are only in OoX and LA. LA's final boss transformed into three different versions of bosses which he faced in ALttP. To me, that means more than a few small enemies, still of which I have yet to find. Anyway, all that is thinking way too critically about a game. LA is supposed to be a direct sequel of ALttP. I don't see why they would go back and retcon the entire manual of LA just to include the Oracle titles.

Main Exampl: LA manual states Link leaves Hyrule to clear his mind after defeating Ganon. If OoX was a prequel, Link would have left Labyrnna or Holodrum after defeating Ganon, not Hyrule. So that would destroy the entire purpose of LA's storyline.

[sign of table]

They didn't retcon the entire manual. OoX fits perfectly in the LA manual.

Ok I'll give you them.

Angler Fish, Arm-Mimic, Blaino, Cheep-Cheep, Facade, Giant Ghini, Pincer, Pokey, Shrouded Stalfos, Smasher, Thwomp, Vire (in that form), Pigblins (they are different from Moblins), Spiked Thwomp.

For LttP-LA exclusives.

Bomber, Hinox, Agahnim (and Agahnim may or may not be in OoS)

14 to 3.

Actually the japanese manual of LA says that Link left for enlightenment after being in foreign countries. Or something like that. Read the japanese manual. I have it linked in my new translations thread.

[MrMosley]

They didn't retcon the entire manual. OoX fits perfectly in the LA manual.

Ok I'll give you them.

Angler Fish, Arm-Mimic, Blaino, Cheep-Cheep, Facade, Giant Ghini, Pincer, Pokey, Shrouded Stalfos, Smasher, Thwomp, Vire (in that form), Pigblins (they are different from Moblins), Spiked Thwomp.

For LttP-LA exclusives.

Bomber, Hinox, Agahnim (and Agahnim may or may not be in OoS)

14 to 3.

Most of the enemies, and pretty much all sprites that could be, which were used for the Oracle titles were because Capcom used recycled Link's Awakening sprites and graphics, not because they wanted it to be a sequel to LA. So that can't really be used as a good resource for placing a game in a timeline.

Agahnim was not in OoS, or OoA for that matter. He was only in ALttP and LA. Thwomp was from the Mario series, as was Goombas, and many other things used in LA which were symbolism from other Nintendo games because it was a dream. It had telephones too.

Stalfos were in ALttP. So were the Moblins, who in ALttP looked like pigs, so the Pig Moblins were in ALttP.

But anyway, most of those enemies came from Capcom recycling older graphics from LA like I had previously stated.




Actually the japanese manual of LA says that Link left for enlightenment after being in foreign countries. Or something like that. Read the japanese manual. I have it linked in my new translations thread.


Okay, but does the manual for OoX fix this? I can figure that it would be easy enough to stick the games there because it mentions "foreign countries", but if the designers wanted the player to know that the Oracle series was supposed to go there, don't you think that they would have said that Link had previously defeated Ganon? Or saved Hyrule? They basically ignore that Link ever had done anything at all in the Oracle titles. Impa dosen't know him, Zelda dosen't know him, so he is virtually non existant until the Oracle titles.

A Link to the Past would have to come before both games in order for anything at all to make since, first of all. In ALttP, Link met Zelda for the first time, at least that generation of Link did. In the Oracle series, Link also meets Zelda for the first time, meaning it is obviously two separate generations of Link. In LA, Link already knows Zelda, as he thinks Marin is Zelda once he wakes up in her home.

Taking this into consideration, you "could" say that it could go ALttP->LA or OoX->LA, but then the fact that the final boss shows up as Agahnim, fighting the same exact way Agahnim fought Link in ALttP, and same going for Ganon, that wouldn't make sense, as the Link from ALttP and the one from LA would now be two completely different generations of Link, and thus the new Link, the one supposidly from OoX and LA, would know nothing about Agahnim or Ganon, and much less be havin nightmares about them.

[sign of table]

^Notice what I said before. I never said that OoX-LA evidence is better that would be bias. I said that counting everything there is more OoX-LA evidence. Which there is.

Also the LA manual says that Link brought peace back to hyrule. Zelda in OoX says that Link brought peace back to hyrule.

I never said LttP-OoX-LA. I said OoX-LA or LttP-LA.
Stalfos were in ALttP. So were the Moblins, who in ALttP looked like pigs, so the Pig Moblins were in ALttP. In OoX and LA there are both Stalfos and other things called Shrouded Stalfos. Shrouded Stalfos appear only in OoX and LA.

Also in OoX and LA there are both Moblins and Pigblins. Japanese names are Moriburin and Butaburin. Moriburin are in LttP and pretty much every game. Butaburin are only in OoX and LA.

Look at the mini-boss of Dancing Dragon Dungeon in OoS. It's the 4th dungeon. It looks identical to the official art of Agahnim. Which is why I said that Agahnim 'might' be in OoS.

[MrMosley]

^Notice what I said before. I never said that OoX-LA evidence is better that would be bias. I said that counting everything there is more OoX-LA evidence. Which there is.

Also the LA manual says that Link brought peace back to hyrule. Zelda in OoX says that Link brought peace back to hyrule.

I never said LttP-OoX-LA. I said OoX-LA or LttP-LA. In OoX and LA there are both Stalfos and other things called Shrouded Stalfos. Shrouded Stalfos appear only in OoX and LA.

Also in OoX and LA there are both Moblins and Pigblins. Japanese names are Moriburin and Butaburin. Moriburin are in LttP and pretty much every game. Butaburin are only in OoX and LA.

Look at the mini-boss of Dancing Dragon Dungeon in OoS. It's the 4th dungeon. It looks identical to the official art of Agahnim. Which is why I said that Agahnim 'might' be in OoS.

But enough evidence to say that you would believe OoX->LA than ALttP->LA? To me, there isn't enough of it to support that OoX is the prequel. Really I just wanted to know what all the reasons were, or all the evidence, and basically its the creatures. Thats easy though. As I had stated, Capcom used recycled LA graphics, so of course they were going to use a lot of the monsters that were already there.

[sign of table]

Yeah, to me it is enough. I'm not going to disregard every single similarity due to the same engine. Just like I'm not going to disregard every similarity for LttP-LA because of original intent.

Plus the boat to me shows enough intent that we have to take all OoX-LA evidence seriously.

[MrMosley]

Yeah, to me it is enough. I'm not going to disregard every single similarity due to the same engine. Just like I'm not going to disregard every similarity for LttP-LA because of original intent.

Plus the boat to me shows enough intent that we have to take all OoX-LA evidence seriously.

Eh, the boat is just a picture to me. He had to get back to Hyrule someway or another, and I'd say that was his only option. I will agree that Nintendo is more likely to base continuation off something simple than a very in depth perspective of something because really I don't think they are all that worried about it. But I still think that its just a picture, and that if they wanted us to know that Link from OoX was the same as the one in LA, we would have some evidence as to how a completely different Link somehow knows how Agahnim and Ganon both fight in ALttP. Theres just too much reference to ALttP in LA to discount it as a prequel/sequel type deal for me.

[Smertios]

Something about OoT being the Imprisoning War smells too Fishy!
If it is the Imprisoning war, then Nintendo did an epic fail, because, it is more like a war of One against a lot of people!
But I am not going against the thoughts of the creator, if he says so, then it is

But, if you do believe that OoT is the IW, you shouldn't put LttP in the CT. The full events of LttP only happened in the Adult portion of the game...