Link to the Past->Oracle Games: Same Link?

[JuicieJ]

And just because they're cameos doesn't mean they need an explanation for being there.

Wait, cameos? With something like Twinrova, that's not gonna be a cameo. That's a huge part of the story.

 

[Capitaine]

Wait, cameos? With something like Twinrova, that's not gonna be a cameo. That's a huge part of the story.

They are minions trying to revive Ganon. Nothing more. They have no bearing on their OoT counterparts whatsoever. None of the characters really have anything to do with OoT actually.

Honestly, I don't see why anyone should expect Flagship to have intended OoX to be consistent with OoT when it barely connects to any of the games you'd expect it to actually follow from.

 

[Jarsh]

Since when did Flagship ever say anything about the Master Sword?

What? It's the Master Sword in OoX. ALttP said it would rest forever, but the most common placement for OoX is after OoX, a game which features the Master Sword.

This argument is easily passed off.

Then address my main argument; the one where OoX was not made to take place on the CT since ALttP, LA, LoZ and AoL took place on the adult timeline at the time of its release.

Just because they said that doesn't mean they'll come back. It's like the old man saying "I'll get you rotten kids!" It doesn't have to mean anything.

If we're going to use this logic, just because Twinrova is in OoX doesn't mean it has to take on the CT, then.

Plus, Ganondorf is dead on the AT. He's a stone at the bottom of the Great Sea and is most certainly not in Ganon form.

He's dead in TP, too, and OoX would either take place after TP or TWW. FSA present a shiny new Ganondorf in either case so this isn't really a point against me.

Besides, you're kind of missing my point. OoX wasn't made with TWW's Ganondorf in mind. It was made with the current games out at the time in mind. OoX uses ALttP's Ganon, and, at the time, ALttP used OoT's Ganon. Because TWW wasn't out yet.

 

[Triforce Hero]

I do not think they are the same Link, due to the fact that when Link meets Zelda in the game, he doesn't recognise her. This means they can't be the same Link because Link meets Zelda in aLttP. I also don't think that OoX even comes after aLttP due to the fact that the Master Sword is layed to rest FOREVER at the end of aLttP, and since you get the Master Sword on OoX, it means they can't go after aLttP.

 

[Jarsh]

I do not think they are the same Link, due to the fact that when Link meets Zelda in the game, he doesn't recognise her. This means they can't be the same Link because Link meets Zelda in aLttP. I also don't think that OoX even comes after aLttP due to the fact that the Master Sword is layed to rest FOREVER at the end of aLttP, and since you get the Master Sword on OoX, it means they can't go after aLttP.

I don't necessarily think OoX Link and ALttP are definitely the same person, but what do you think of Din introducing herself to Link AGAIN in a linked OoA game (even though they met and went through a lot together in OoS)? What if the introduction is just for the player, then? About the Master Sword, it could just be something fun Flagship threw in for fun since it has no bearing on the story, and the multiple ways to get it are usually mutually exclusive.

 

[JuicieJ]

I don't necessarily think OoX Link and ALttP are definitely the same person, but what do you think of Din introducing herself to Link AGAIN in a linked OoA game (even though they met and went through a lot together in OoS)? What if the introduction is just for the player, then? About the Master Sword, it could just be something fun Flagship threw in for fun since it has no bearing on the story, and the multiple ways to get it are usually mutually exclusive.

This is exactly why I say the placement of the OoX is sketchy. If I am to place it, it's in-between ALttP and LA, but I in no way say that is absolutely where it goes.

What? It's the Master Sword in OoX. ALttP said it would rest forever, but the most common placement for OoX is after OoX, a game which features the Master Sword.

Really? Well, there's something new I learned. (If that is the case, as I've never heard that from anyone else before.)

Then address my main argument; the one where OoX was not made to take place on the CT since ALttP, LA, LoZ and AoL took place on the adult timeline at the time of its release.

I understand this, but it's not that way anymore. So that argument really can't be used.

If we're going to use this logic, just because Twinrova is in OoX doesn't mean it has to take on the CT, then.

What? Logic is the exact reason the OoX has to take place on the CT.

He's dead in TP, too, and OoX would either take place after TP or TWW.

He may not be completely dead in TP, as he still had the ToP when he was stabbed, whereas he didn't in WW. It simply failed him in TP and is still out there, while the Triforce is whole again in WW. Since it's still out there on the CT, Ganondorf can still come back. (Besides, surely they wouldn't get rid of him on both timelines.)

FSA present a shiny new Ganondorf in either case so this isn't really a point against me.

Whether or not Ganondorf is new in FSA or not is nowhere near clear, so that's a highly bold argument to use. (The evidence really points to him being the same as that of OoT imo, though.)

Besides, you're kind of missing my point. OoX wasn't made with TWW's Ganondorf in mind. It was made with the current games out at the time in mind. OoX uses ALttP's Ganon, and, at the time, ALttP used OoT's Ganon. Because TWW wasn't out yet.

This is where retconning comes into play.

 

[Jarsh]

Really? Well, there's something new I learned. (If that is the case, as I've never heard that from anyone else before.)

There's more info about it here.

I understand this, but it's not that way anymore. So that argument really can't be used.

Yes, it most definitely can. There is no evidence that intent about OoX has been shifted as of late. If you think that OoX was on AT when it was released, but now it's on the CT because Twinrova's appearance suddenly matters, then you believe in an invisible retcon as there's no proof the developers now intend this when they originally didn't. (for instance, they haven't said in an interview "yeah, the game was part of the adult timeline, but we moved it to the child timeline because of Twinrova.")

What? Logic is the exact reason the OoX has to take place on the CT.

Not because of Twinrova, unless you believe in non-evidenced, invisible retcons.

He may not be completely dead in TP, as he still had the ToP when he was stabbed, whereas he didn't in WW. It simply failed him in TP and is still out there, while the Triforce is whole again in WW. Since it's still out there on the CT, Ganondorf can still come back. (Besides, surely they wouldn't get rid of him on both timelines.)

Ganon returning or not has been shown to be through methods not involving the Triforce. The Triforce isn't relevant to Ganon needing Link's blood to revive, or needing the Hero of Light's power, or needing Zelda's body to use as a vessel to revive.

Whether or not Ganondorf is new in FSA or not is nowhere near clear, so that's a highly bold argument to use. (The evidence really points to him being the same as that of OoT imo, though.)

The evidence doesn't point to him being the same as OoT's Ganondorf if you place FSA within the same modern split timeline that OoT is in. I've pointed this out in another thread.

This is where retconning comes into play.

Retcons that aren't known to even exist. Why don't I just say that ALttP has been retconned so the Master Sword is no longer in it? It's just as well-evidenced as what you're positing.

 

[JuicieJ]

Yes, it most definitely can. There is no evidence that intent about OoX has been shifted as of late. If you think that OoX was on AT when it was released, but now it's on the CT because Twinrova's appearance suddenly matters, then you believe in an invisible retcon as there's no proof the developers now intend this when they originally didn't. (for instance, they haven't said in an interview "yeah, the game was part of the adult timeline, but we moved it to the child timeline because of Twinrova.")

I'm not saying because of Twinrova, but rather that the other games were moved to the CT. In other words, the first four games. Twinrova just adds to it.

Not because of Twinrova, unless you believe in non-evidenced, invisible retcons.

The retcons, again, involve WW retconning ALttP as a sequel to the adult ending of OoT.

Ganon returning or not has been shown to be through methods not involving the Triforce. The Triforce isn't relevant to Ganon needing Link's blood to revive, or needing the Hero of Light's power, or needing Zelda's body to use as a vessel to revive.

Yes, but that would probably be the case of how he would be revived after TP. Getting the ToP back. I'm not talking about revival in general.

The evidence doesn't point to him being the same as OoT's Ganondorf if you place FSA within the same modern split timeline that OoT is in. I've pointed this out in another thread.

And I've pointed out the evidence that suggests he's the same in that exact same thread. It can't really be proven either way, but I support him being the same.

Retcons that aren't known to even exist. Why don't I just say that ALttP has been retconned so the Master Sword is no longer in it? It's just as well-evidenced as what you're positing.

Again, I'm talking about the other games being moved, bringing the OoX along with them.

 

[Jarsh]

I'm not saying because of Twinrova, but rather that the other games were moved to the CT. In other words, the first four games. Twinrova just adds to it.

The retcons, again, involve WW retconning ALttP as a sequel to the adult ending of OoT.

That's quite a bit different than you saying "they wouldn't put Twinrova in if it was supposed to be on the AT. " That's what I was arguing against, not this. If you believe that the TP-ALttP connection moved OoX and LoZ/AoL to the CT, that's fine with me. But the fact of the matter is that Twinrova were at least once intended to be in a game that took place after OoT on the AT, and there's no evidence their appearance is suddenly indicative of a CT placement when, as a fact, it wasn't originally.

Yes, but that would probably be the case of how he would be revived after TP. Getting the ToP back. I'm not talking about revival in general.

Well, we don't current have a precedent for this, nor do we have a sequel to TP, so...

And I've pointed out the evidence that suggests he's the same in that exact same thread. It can't really be proven either way, but I support him being the same.

If Ganondorf is the same one from OoT, then why is he the Gerudo leader/guardian? Every 100 years, a new Gerudo male is born to take lead, so it should be a Gerudo male other than Ganondorf.

Why does the game suggest Ganondorf was born less than 100 years ago (since that was the supplement explanation for him CURRENTLY being their guardian).

If Ganondorf is the same one from OoT, why did they greatly underestimate him to the point they didn't think he could pass the Desert Temple?

If he's the same one from OoT, why does he randomly completely forget about the Triforce, his main desire, and go after the trident instead?

You see, I don't have to answer basically anything for FSA Ganondorf being a new one. One side clearly has less holes to deal with. If you feel this is too off-topic to respond to, then there's that "Multiple Deaths of Ganondorf" thread to respond in.

Again, I'm talking about the other games being moved, bringing the OoX along with them.

That's not quite what you said originally, hence my misconstruing your argument.

 

[Forlong]

There's more info about it here.

The problem there is that you don't find the Master Sword in the Pedestal of Time. In fact, you can even turn your old sword into the Master Sword. That doesn't sound right at all. The Master Sword was clearly only added to these games as an Easter Egg.

Yes, it most definitely can. There is no evidence that intent about OoX has been shifted as of late. If you think that OoX was on AT when it was released, but now it's on the CT because Twinrova's appearance suddenly matters, then you believe in an invisible retcon as there's no proof the developers now intend this when they originally didn't. (for instance, they haven't said in an interview "yeah, the game was part of the adult timeline, but we moved it to the child timeline because of Twinrova.")

The Adult Timeline can't exist unless there is a split in the timeline. How could anyone believe that Link, being sent back before the events of the game, would just let everyone in Hyrule suffer? "Oh, but all those references to the other games!" Those are just that: "references"! There weren't meant to set in stone OoT's placement. Nintendo has officially stated that they don't like cementing their Zelda titles in place. They have a lot more room to work if the titles have fluid placement.

The evidence doesn't point to him being the same as OoT's Ganondorf if you place FSA within the same modern split timeline that OoT is in. I've pointed this out in another thread.

And how'd the entire Gerudo tribe come back? Did Twinrova spend their time reviving everyone in it just so this new Ganondorf could betray them? I used to believe that hogwash myself, then I took the five minutes needed to actually find the evidence proving that it cannot. Not only that, the only reasons people put it there are based on ridiculous anti-logic.

 

[Jarsh]

The problem there is that you don't find the Master Sword in the Pedestal of Time. In fact, you can even turn your old sword into the Master Sword. That doesn't sound right at all. The Master Sword was clearly only added to these games as an Easter Egg.

Yes, an easter egg meant for the fans rather than a timeline connector; just like most things such as multiple MM characters and OoT characters in OoX.

The Adult Timeline can't exist unless there is a split in the timeline. How could anyone believe that Link, being sent back before the events of the game, would just let everyone in Hyrule suffer? "Oh, but all those references to the other games!" Those are just that: "references"! There weren't meant to set in stone OoT's placement. Nintendo has officially stated that they don't like cementing their Zelda titles in place. They have a lot more room to work if the titles have fluid placement.

...What? The split timeline is a fact, and it factually existed that far back since ALttP took place after OoT's AT ending.

And how'd the entire Gerudo tribe come back? Did Twinrova spend their time reviving everyone in it just so this new Ganondorf could betray them? I used to believe that hogwash myself, then I took the five minutes needed to actually find the evidence proving that it cannot. Not only that, the only reasons people put it there are based on ridiculous anti-logic.

Come back? Who says they left? In TP, you only explore the "Gerudo Desert" rather than the "Gerudo Valley" where the Gerudo originally were. If you place FSA on the AT after TWW, they return in the same manner the Gorons do to new Hyrule. Not to mention that the Gerudo in FSA are wholly different from the ones in OoT (they are much nicer and no longer thieves).

 

[JuicieJ]

Well, we don't current have a precedent for this, nor do we have a sequel to TP, so...

This is what is called speculation of what Nintendo may do. I in no way use this as a real argument for ALttP's placement on the "timeline."

If Ganondorf is the same one from OoT, then why is he the Gerudo leader/guardian? Every 100 years, a new Gerudo male is born to take lead, so it should be a Gerudo male other than Ganondorf.

Why is he their leader? Because that's what he was in Ocarina of Time, of course. What, do you think he was just a person in OoT? (Which I know you don't.)

Why does the game suggest Ganondorf was born less than 100 years ago (since that was the supplement explanation for him CURRENTLY being their guardian).

This is actually one of the reasons I say the FSS may just be a separate/alternate legend than the main canon.

If Ganondorf is the same one from OoT, why did they greatly underestimate him to the point they didn't think he could pass the Desert Temple?

Because he would have never gotten into the Sacred Realm, but rather failed (and foiled by a little kid, at that). That would have ruined his reputation in the Gerudos' eyes.

If he's the same one from OoT, why does he randomly completely forget about the Triforce, his main desire, and go after the trident instead?

Again, one reason I think the FSS may be a separate/alternate legend, as the Triforce is not mentioned. However, again, the chased out thing. He would have no reason to go after the Triforce, as Hyrule would be expecting him.

You see, I don't have to answer basically anything for FSA Ganondorf being a new one. One side clearly has less holes to deal with. If you feel this is too off-topic to respond to, then there's that "Multiple Deaths of Ganondorf" thread to respond in.

You also missed a bunch of things (as I pointed out, and not for the first time).

That's not quite what you said originally, hence my misconstruing your argument.

Then I must have misspoke or not made that very clear.

The Adult Timeline can't exist unless there is a split in the timeline. How could anyone believe that Link, being sent back before the events of the game, would just let everyone in Hyrule suffer? "Oh, but all those references to the other games!" Those are just that: "references"! There weren't meant to set in stone OoT's placement. Nintendo has officially stated that they don't like cementing their Zelda titles in place. They have a lot more room to work if the titles have fluid placement.

There is a split timeline. Aonuma has confirmed it twice. And references, when used as main story aspects, are part of the canon, making them connections and not just simple cameos and such.

 

[Forlong]

...What? The split timeline is a fact, and it factually existed that far back since ALttP took place after OoT's AT ending.

I believe you completely missed my point. The Adult Timeline only exists because the split exists. MM makes it clear that the AT was not cannon. It only became so when it was clear that there was a split. Thus, LttP was always in the CT. It couldn't be in the AT because OoT didn't represent the Sealing War...at all.

Come back? Who says they left? In TP, you only explore the "Gerudo Desert" rather than the "Gerudo Valley" where the Gerudo originally were. If you place FSA on the AT after TWW, they return in the same manner the Gorons do to new Hyrule. Not to mention that the Gerudo in FSA are wholly different from the ones in OoT (they are much nicer and no longer thieves).

Way to be completely culturally apathetic. In the Gerudo Desert, you come across a very important temple. The Gerudo weren't about to leave that and go somewhere else. And the cultural differences, ever heard of an "economy"? Just because the Gerudo tribe was only able to scrape a living during OoT doesn't mean that was always the case. Also, in FSA, the Gerudo don't have a desert or valley named after them. If the tribe grew, the desert might be renamed to reflect it's inhabitants. The evidence supports FSA occurring before OoT.

 

[JuicieJ]

I believe you completely missed my point. The Adult Timeline only exists because the split exists. MM makes it clear that the AT was not cannon. It only became so when it was clear that there was a split. Thus, LttP was always in the CT. It couldn't be in the AT because OoT didn't represent the Sealing War...at all.

No, ALttP was originally on the AT, as the adult ending of OoT was originally the Seal War. MM didn't make anything clear about what is "canon" or not.

 

[Jarsh]

Why is he their leader? Because that's what he was in Ocarina of Time, of course. What, do you think he was just a person in OoT? (Which I know you don't.)

I'm actually getting at why he would be their ruler after TP. FSA would take place hundreds of years after OoT's CT ending, right? If so, OoT's Ganondorf shouldn't be the Gerudo's leader/guardian, and a new Gerudo male would be (specifically, one that was born less than 100 years ago).

Because he would have never gotten into the Sacred Realm, but rather failed (and foiled by a little kid, at that). That would have ruined his reputation in the Gerudos' eyes.

Ah, but that's where FSA actually gives us an explanation. The Gerudo only dislike him because of breaking their laws recently (leaving to the pyramid, to be specific). Which would imply that he hadn't done anything bad until the day he left for the trident, which wouldn't match OoT Ganondorf...

He would have no reason to go after the Triforce, as Hyrule would be expecting him.

Actually, no one was expecting Ganondorf in FSA. Nobody knew about his intentions until you actually get to the room where the trident should be. If it's dangerous for him to get the trident, it would be equally as dangerous for him to try getting the trident as he would have had a reputation for trying to obtain power.

You also missed a bunch of things (as I pointed out, and not for the first time).

I actually went through the thread I mentioned before and must've missed your arguments against. What are some holes with FSA being a separate Ganondorf?

I believe you completely missed my point. The Adult Timeline only exists because the split exists. MM makes it clear that the AT was not cannon. It only became so when it was clear that there was a split. Thus, LttP was always in the CT. It couldn't be in the AT because OoT didn't represent the Sealing War...at all.

Well, the developers disagree. MM didn't make the adult timeline non-canon at all. There were no contradictions with the classic games being in the adult timeline, and OoT was the Imprisoning War.

Way to be completely culturally apathetic. In the Gerudo Desert, you come across a very important temple. The Gerudo weren't about to leave that and go somewhere else.

Why not? Do you even know it has a connection to the Gerudo? FSA's Gerudo were nomadic, so I think it's more likely they move about as they please.

And the cultural differences, ever heard of an "economy"? Just because the Gerudo tribe was only able to scrape a living during OoT doesn't mean that was always the case.

Not sure how this is at all relevant...

Also, in FSA, the Gerudo don't have a desert or valley named after them. If the tribe grew, the desert might be renamed to reflect it's inhabitants.

Instead, FSA gives the desert the same name it has in ALttP, which suggest closer chronological connection to ALttP than before OoT.

The evidence supports FSA occurring before OoT.

Two origins for Ganondorf back to back? While FSA Hyrule is obviously a throwback to a post-OoT game? Plus, there's Aonuma's implications of SS being the only pre-OoT game as of the moment.