A ZD Timeline Project

[Raven]

The land of PH could be the land of AoL.

u are wrong because u dont have any hard evidence to back this up, just try and explain this. notice the words you used "COULD". I don't give a blank about new hyrule stop saying random stuff about zelda. did you make the game? NO. so stop pretending like you know something we don't and stick to what you do know which does't seem to be much.
PH is AoL flooded, get real your theories are weak and so are your replies so don't bother, u aren't convincing anyone.

Its called concrete evidence if you dont have it then stop trying.

I was tired... sue me

if this is your attitude about trying to cover up your own mistakes then thats just sad.

Plus you should play wind waker again and read the words this time.
If you don't know what im talking about then thats to bad...

 

[Hayzer]

u are wrong because u dont have any hard evidence to back this up, just try and explain this. notice the words you used "COULD". I don't give a blank about new hyrule stop saying random stuff about zelda. did you make the game? NO. so stop pretending like you know something we don't and stick to what you do know which does't seem to be much.
PH is AoL flooded, get real your theories are weak and so are your replies so don't bother, u aren't convincing anyone.

Actually, he's got some pretty strong evidence concerning the Legend of the Fairy. So not taking that into consideration is just blind ignorance.

@SoJ: You've got some good theories there, but I can also say that the Legend of the Fairy was probably just an easter egg to set off some nostalgia in the fan base. Cameo, easter egg, what have you, that's what it was.

However, you have produced some shockingly good evidence as to how the majority of the games go on the AT. In fact that's what I've been leaning towards recently.

Its called concrete evidence if you dont have it then stop trying.

I don't know how in game quotes aren't concrete.

if this is your attitude about trying to cover up your own mistakes then thats just sad.

Plus you should play wind waker again and read the words this time.
If you don't know what im talking about then thats to bad...

I'm pretty sure he's capable of reading.

 

[MrMosley]

@SoJ, if your going to come in and use that one specific quote to try and knock all the other evidence, then you are wasting your time. There's no means for discussion in that. I've made other reasons, yet you keep coming back to that one quote as if it is a definite. Remember the Miyamoto Order Quote? Yeah we kinda destroyed that one as well, so.

Now I will admit, the Legend of the Fairy is a very good, and interesting part of WW. But its obviously wrong. There could be many reasons why they put it in there. They could have not planned for a split timeline at the time. They could have suggested that the events of the AT still happened on the CT, sorta like how Back to the Future works. Remember how Marty could go back and forth through time and see himself driving the Delorian back in time? It would have worked something like that. And things would have been fine. That piece of info could have also just been thrown in there for nostalgic reasons, as Zemen stated. The bottom line is, we now know its wrong. And it doesn't help your argument of LoZ/AoL being on the AT at all. So its kinda irrelevant.

But anyway, it is interesting, and I'm glad you posted it here for me to finally read.

And the Triforce "flying away", as you call it at the end of OoX... I highly doubt that has any significance of anything at all.

 

[sign of table]

u are wrong because u dont have any hard evidence to back this up,

1) A quote from Aonuma is all the evidence I need. 2) That's an argument from ignornance fallacy, by the way.

did you make the game? NO.

No, but the person who wrote the story of OoT and the person who directs the series agree with me.

PH is AoL flooded, get real your theories are weak and so are your replies so don't bother, u aren't convincing anyone.

Can you please clean up your grammar? I'm having trouble actually understanding everything you say.

if this is your attitude about trying to cover up your own mistakes then thats just sad.

Yes... making a mistake is sad and I should burn in hell for it.......

@SoJ: You've got some good theories there, but I can also say that the Legend of the Fairy was probably just an easter egg to set off some nostalgia in the fan base. Cameo, easter egg, what have you, that's what it was.

However, you have produced some shockingly good evidence as to how the majority of the games go on the AT. In fact that's what I've been leaning towards recently.

That's part of my point. If it's in-game evidence vs developer quote then developer quote is always more important. Otherwise we'd all have linear timelines...

Funnily enough, I don't place most of my games on the AT . The only one I actually consider placing on the AT is LoZ/AoL and maybe OoX.

@SoJ, if your going to come in and use that one specific quote to try and knock all the other evidence, then you are wasting your time.

So you're saying that in-game evidence > developer quotes?

I've made other reasons, yet you keep coming back to that one quote as if it is a definite.

I'd say it IS definite. It happened in 2008. There hasn't been ANYTHING to retcon it. No way it could be wrong right now.

Remember the Miyamoto Order Quote? Yeah we kinda destroyed that one as well, so.

You didn't destroy it. You debated nothing but opinions. OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP could work. There was NOTHING stopping it. But there was the creator of the series saying that that's the timeline.

But its obviously wrong.

Of course it's wrong! Why is it wrong? Because it contradicts developer quotes.

They could have not planned for a split timeline at the time.

Other parts of TWW implied a split timeline. And the quotes about the split happened immediatly following the release of TWW. It was clearly intended with the release of TWW.

They could have suggested that the events of the AT still happened on the CT, sorta like how Back to the Future works. Remember how Marty could go back and forth through time and see himself driving the Delorian back in time? It would have worked something like that. And things would have been fine.

When TWW was out, however, there WAS a split timeline confirmed by Aonuma and Miyamoto. Which is EXACTLY why the Legend of the Fairy is wrong. Because it contradicted Aonuma (and Miyamoto).

That piece of info could have also just been thrown in there for nostalgic reasons, as Zemen stated. The bottom line is, we now know its wrong. And it doesn't help your argument of LoZ/AoL being on the AT at all. So its kinda irrelevant.

Of course we know it's wrong. But we know it's wrong because of more recent developer quotes contradicting it. The Aonuma interview talking about the towns being named after the sages was JUST LAST YEAR. There is NOTHING more recent that contradicts or retcons it. It is the most recent developer quote, and there has not been a Zelda game since. What can we conclude from that based on the logic both you and I used for the Legend of the Fairy story? That it retcons everything previous to it.

And the Triforce "flying away", as you call it at the end of OoX... I highly doubt that has any significance of anything at all.

Let's look at the situation from when it was released.

In 1998 the official timeline was OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP. Whether or not OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL made more sense (which I'd say it did), the Miyamoto order was the official timeline.

Look at the state of the Triforce in OoX. It's exactly the same as the ending of LoZ/AoL. Look at Ganon's title in OoX. First he's a Daimaou, then he calls himself a Yami no Maou after being resurrected (but everything else in the entire game called him a Daimaou). In LoZ/AoL Ganon is only known as a Daimaou. And in LttP Ganon is only known as a Yami no Maou. Is it me, or does it look like a transitional phase from Daimaou to Yami no Maou?

That is more than LttP-OoX had at the time.

So I'd say it's safe to say that the intended timeline was OoT-LoZ/AoL-OoX-LttP.

Now let's look at the ending of OoX if we assume the above order is correct (yes, I know it's kinda circular logic. But I'd say LoZ/AoL-OoX is much more evidenced. And the Miyamoto order WAS official).

LoZ/AoL happens. The Triforce gets brought together (still seperated, though) by Link. OoX happens. The Triforce is seperated and in the castle. When it ends the Triforce is seens flying away from Hyrule castle.

Now let's step back a bit. Back to 1998. OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP had something that was a little odd. The Triforce of LttP is in the SR.

Now this may look like a stretch, but assuming OoT-LoZ/AoL-OoX-LttP was correct (the only real thing to argue here is the placement of OoX. Which I'd say definitely fits better after LoZ/AoL) then the Triforce flying away and disappearing likely meant that it was going to the SR.

Of course the theory only works if the Miyamoto order was correct. But the Miyamoto order was the official timeline. So the only real speculation here is the placement of OoX, which is more evidenced, I'd say, to go after LoZ/AoL in 2000, and that the Triforce was going to the SR. But assuming that order was correct, OoX was the only chance in the series to fix the Triforce problem between LoZ/AoL and LttP.



Now I have a very serious question to ask you. I'm having trouble actually figuring out how important developer quotes are to you. You say that the official order of 1998 (and the Aonuma quote heavily implying AoL on the AT from 2008) is wrong, but you say that the split timeline is fact (when it is contradicted by in-game evidence in TWW. Which was the same time that the split was confirmed). So I ask you this:

If they ever made an official timeline and it didn't go with your preconceived beliefs, would you deny it?

 

[MrMosley]

Now I have a very serious question to ask you. I'm having trouble actually figuring out how important developer quotes are to you. You say that the official order of 1998 (and the Aonuma quote heavily implying AoL on the AT from 2008) is wrong, but you say that the split timeline is fact (when it is contradicted by in-game evidence in TWW. Which was the same time that the split was confirmed). So I ask you this:

If they ever made an official timeline and it didn't go with your preconceived beliefs, would you deny it?

No, I would not. There would still be inconsitancies, but I would not deny an official timeline. I am only pointing out the imperfections in these developers and their stance on timeline-related quotes. Miyamoto was only involved (storyline wise) heavily, in LoZ. After that, he had others to write those stories for him. Knowing that, and understanding that the Miyamoto Order does not make sense in my mind, I don't consider it to be true. Anyone who would play the games in the Miyamoto Order would be confused.

Aonuma didn't start making these games until MM. He made a quote on AoL and OoT, two games that he had nothing to do with. That is a problem on his part. Now, he may have heard or been told that they deliberately named the Sages after some of the towns in AoL to show a connection, but that, we do not know. Does this quote make sense? Sure it does. Are their inconsistencies? Yes there are. Are there other things that are just as important as this quote? I believe so.

I am really taking quite a basic stance on all of this. I have detailed theories, but my logic is pretty basic. Take a look at the games in the eyes of a common gamer; Someone who doesn't know every single minute detail about these games. Playing through them in certain orders would not make sense. If you told them, okay, the timeline is split, then they would be able to make some sense of things.

My approach is taking the games and placing them in a timeline that is detailed and has good reason for being the way it is, yet it is a timeline that would make more sense to a normal gamer or someone who could care less about a timeline debate. Structuring the timeline in such a way that the gamer does not have to stop and say "Wait... This doesn't make sense... Shouldn't this be like this?" is the goal. And as long as the average game knew the split and is aware that not all Link's and Zelda's are the same, I think they could play through them without much of any confusion in the order that we have established thus far.

 

[sign of table]

Aonuma didn't start making these games until MM. He made a quote on AoL and OoT, two games that he had nothing to do with. That is a problem on his part.

So if/when Aonuma releases an official timeline, he isn't allowed to place any of the games from LoZ-OoT any differently than you, or else you'll disregard it?

Now, he may have heard or been told that they deliberately named the Sages after some of the towns in AoL to show a connection, but that, we do not know. Does this quote make sense? Sure it does. Are their inconsistencies? Yes there are. Are there other things that are just as important as this quote? I believe so.

He's the only person likely to ever put out an official timeline. If he says that the AoL towns are named after the OoT sages, and that the game takes place after the events of OoT, I'd say it's pretty damn likely that it'll matter to an official timeline.

 

[MrMosley]

So if/when Aonuma releases an official timeline, he isn't allowed to place any of the games from LoZ-OoT any differently than you, or else you'll disregard it?

I believe you need to try and read an entire post before you start quoting each part.

He's the only person likely to ever put out an official timeline. If he says that the AoL towns are named after the OoT sages, and that the game takes place after the events of OoT, I'd say it's pretty damn likely that it'll matter to an official timeline.

Yeah it would matter, IF we had an official timeline. But we don't. So as of right now, I'm taking better evidence over his word in this one.

 

[Zemen]

Well I have been on hiatus for a couple days so now that I see an entire new page has been added in my absence I will start addressing stuff.

@SoJ, I don't think you are quite understanding what DL01 is saying. There is no official timeline as of yet. You are trying to argue stuff that would matter if we had an official timeline, but we don't have one so we can only go on our own opinions mixed with in game evidence and creator quotes. If one creator quote is contradicted by a slew of in game evidence then I would personally go with the in game evidence which is what DL01 is trying to tell you. You would go with the creator quote and that's fine because that is your choice, but that's not our choice.

I know you hate this argument but you said that if a creator quote contradicted in game evidence then you would go with the creator quote. This leads back to the whole "If Miyamoto told us Link never existed and his name is Fred, you would believe him and Link would cease to exist to you" argument. The games always stay the same unless they are retconned. If we have multiple pieces of evidence against AoL on the adult timeline then it probably doesn't go on the adult timeline. The games never change, is my point. Developers can always change what they say.

Today Aunouma says that AoL towns are named after sages. Tomorrow he could say they were named after important people in Hylian history. The point is that no matter what he says, he can change his mind but the games don't magically change to fit what they say. If Miyamoto says Link doesn't exist, he's wrong unless they retcon every game and change Link's name to Fred.

Long story short is that to an extent, creator quotes are very important, but if the game contradicts a creator quote more than it fits with one, then the creator quote is probably wrong.

Also, stop using that part of the quote where Aunouma says that AoL takes place after the events of OoT. That could literally go either way. You're interpreting it one way when other people can interpret it a different way. It's your OPINION that it refers to the adult portion of OoT, but that doesn't mean you're right. The only part of that quote that is clear is when he says that the AoL towns are named after the sages of OoT.

Also, the name of every town is important. If 2 towns don't match up with what Aunouma says that we can't just disregard them and say they aren't important. If the name of one town matters, then the name of all of the towns matter. We have 2 towns named after people who were not important at all. In fact, how would anyone even know who Mido is? I thought the Kokiri were cut off from the rest of the world and I doubt that Link would say anything good about him that would make him worthy of having a town named after him later on in history.

Putting AoL on the AT would mean there was a new Hyrule. How would the history of Hyrule be passed down and how would traditions and names be the same as stuff that was supposed to be forgotten on the AT? You have yet to explain that.

 

[sign of table]

I believe you need to try and read an entire post before you start quoting each part.

Some of what you said I didn't have a comment for. So I quoted the first thing that I found important.

Yeah it would matter, IF we had an official timeline. But we don't. So as of right now, I'm taking better evidence over his word in this one.

In 1998 we DID have an official timeline. But you say that the Miyamoto official timeline has always been wrong. I assume you'll disregard any official timeline we get if it goes against your preconceived opinions.

I know you hate this argument but you said that if a creator quote contradicted in game evidence then you would go with the creator quote. This leads back to the whole "If Miyamoto told us Link never existed and his name is Fred, you would believe him and Link would cease to exist to you" argument. The games always stay the same unless they are retconned. If we have multiple pieces of evidence against AoL on the adult timeline then it probably doesn't go on the adult timeline. The games never change, is my point. Developers can always change what they say.

And if I began to float upwards one day the theory of gravity would be wrong; so the theory of gravity is untrustworthy. See how ridiculous that is?

The games can't change, yes, but the intent behind those games CAN change.

Today Aunouma says that AoL towns are named after sages. Tomorrow he could say they were named after important people in Hylian history.

So WHAT if that could change one day? It was confirmed in '98 and it was confirmed in '08. Nothing more recent has come since then so it hasn't been retconned, so RIGHT NOW (not a later time. Since we aren't theorizing about what the timeline could be in a couple years) it is safe to say that the towns are named after the sages.

If Miyamoto says Link doesn't exist, he's wrong unless they retcon every game and change Link's name to Fred.

And if Miyamoto is adamant on Link being Fred he would likely retcon all the times Link is mentioned and replace that with Fred for every rerelease. But Miyamoto isn't a pyshco.

Also, stop using that part of the quote where Aunouma says that AoL takes place after the events of OoT. That could literally go either way. You're interpreting it one way when other people can interpret it a different way. It's your OPINION that it refers to the adult portion of OoT, but that doesn't mean you're right. The only part of that quote that is clear is when he says that the AoL towns are named after the sages of OoT.

When did I ever say I'm right when referring to the part about AoL taking place after the events of OoT? I was only stating the facts and/or voicing an opinion.

The facts are that it DID say that it takes place after the events of OoT, and the majority of the events, if not all of them, take place on the AT. I see nothing wrong or opinionated with that except for me saying that maybe all of the events take place on the AT. That's the ONLY opinion I gave, and I in no way voiced it as fact.


Why does what could happen in the future matter so much? A personal timeline isn't meant to be infallible or good forever (look at the linearists). It's supposed to be a timeline based on what makes sense from RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW nothing at all more recent than Aonuma's quote has said that the towns of AoL can't be named after the sages.

If the name of one town matters, then the name of all of the towns matter.

If my thumb is important, my pinky is equally important. If the second-to-last chapter of the Harry Potter series is important, the 7th chapter of the second book is equally important to the progression of the story. If using Meta Knight(of SSB's Down Smash to kill is important to playing well, then Meta Knight's jab is just as important for killing as his Down Smash.

See the problems in those? I place much less importance on my pinky as I do my thumb (of course I like both , but my thumb is much more used and is... well more useful and important). The 7th chapter of the second book of Harry Potter has much less emphasis, and is much less important to the outcome of the story as the second-to-last chapter of the entire series is. Meta Knight's Down Smash is good, his jab is freaken awful. No emphasis or importance was ever placed upon the towns of Mido and Kasuto, whereas the other 5 were given importance by developer quotes twice (the most recent one being just last year with nothing possible retconning it or the intent behind the quote).

Putting AoL on the AT would mean there was a new Hyrule. How would the history of Hyrule be passed down and how would traditions and names be the same as stuff that was supposed to be forgotten on the AT? You have yet to explain that.

In the room with the MS in TWW there are portraits of all of the sages. For all we know it could have happened because of those.

The point is that Aonuma said that it happens. Nothing blatently contradicts it. It's a stretch to think up any explanation for how it works, but nothing makes it wrong. And when the current director says that the towns are named after the sages, while nothing contradicts it, then it is correct. Your analogy doesn't even apply here; because Aonuma ISN'T contradicted. His statement works fine; it just don't agree with your preconceived opinions on the placement of AoL. That doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Zemen]

If my thumb is important, my pinky is equally important. If the second-to-last chapter of the Harry Potter series is important, the 7th chapter of the second book is equally important to the progression of the story. If using Meta Knight(of SSB's Down Smash to kill is important to playing well, then Meta Knight's jab is just as important for killing as his Down Smash.

See the problems in those? I place much less importance on my pinky as I do my thumb (of course I like both , but my thumb is much more used and is... well more useful and important). The 7th chapter of the second book of Harry Potter has much less emphasis, and is much less important to the outcome of the story as the second-to-last chapter of the entire series is. Meta Knight's Down Smash is good, his jab is freaken awful. No emphasis or importance was ever placed upon the towns of Mido and Kasuto, whereas the other 5 were given importance by developer quotes twice (the most recent one being just last year with nothing possible retconning it or the intent behind the quote).

Worst argument I have ever seen. You're comparing body parts and books to the names of towns in a video games. First of all, our bodies are not created the same way as a video game. God isn't going to come down from the heavens and say "your thumb is called so because it is named after an ancient sage but your pinky doesn't matter because it's not."

You are also comparing 1 chapter in a book to the entire series. I am comparing one town to another. See the difference? At least the things I'm comparing are essentially the same thing. Like comparing one basketball to another or like comparing one thumb to your other thumb. You're making drastic comparisons and trying to make it work with my comparison of 2 things that are the same. It's not working.

All of the towns are the same exact thing in AoL. They are just towns from an old game. The game was not created so that some towns are more important than others. The only thing that gave the "sage" towns importance was Aunouma focusing on them. Until he said anything about it, they were all equal. The fact that there are 2 towns named after completely unimportant name is important. As DL01 said earlier, you can't say that one town is important but the other isn't just because Aunouma didn't say anything about it. They are all towns. They are the same basic thing with different names. To say that those 2 aren't important is just ignorant.

In the room with the MS in TWW there are portraits of all of the sages. For all we know it could have happened because of those.

I must have missed the part where their names were also encased on the stain glass windows. Also, I don't believe Link was ever told that the windows depicted sages.

The point is that Aonuma said that it happens. Nothing blatently contradicts it.

Really? Nothing blatantly contradicts it?

How about the fact that in WW, Link and Tetra were told to find a new land? How about the fact that Hyrule was flooded and no one knows any history of Hyrule (kind of weird that AoL Hyrule would be a lot like a previously lost Hyrule)? How about the fact that you even said that in the Japanese version of the game, the king wished for Hyrule to be erased? When something is erased it usually means it disappears. Kind of hard for this new Hyrule that you are suggesting to be EXACTLY like the old one when the old one was supposed to be "erased"

That all contradicts it.

 

[MrMosley]

I assume you'll disregard any official timeline we get if it goes against your preconceived opinions.

Okay, so even though I told you in two separate posts that I would not disregard an official timeline, you still say that you assume I would? Then why even ask me? Why are you wasting both of our time by asking if your preconcieved notions about my opinion aren't going to change either way? That's kinda ********.

Also, I'm not going to say "Oh yeah I believe that developer quote because its is a developer quote", just to not seem like a n00b to you. Its like Zemen said, if you want to believe developer quotes that have more in-game evidence to contradict them, then go ahead. But personally, I'll take the more knowledgable way out. I'd rather make a better educated guess by using more facts than just disregarding everything for a developer quote that doesn't much help the situation at the moment.

It's supposed to be a timeline based on what makes sense from RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW nothing at all more recent than Aonuma's quote has said that the towns of AoL can't be named after the sages. If my thumb is important, my pinky is equally important. If the second-to-last chapter of the Harry Potter series is important, the 7th chapter of the second book is equally important to the progression of the story.

The problems in those is that they aren't all of equal value. Your picking things that vary amongst their importance. I don't read Harry Potter books, but most of everything you came up with is pretty unequal. A posable thumb is more important than a finger that can't do much. A town name is a town name. No one town is more important than the next in AoL. In just about every one, you meet an old woman to restore your magic, a young woman to restore health, and find an important item or learn a spell. It doesn't matter if any emphasis was put on Mido or Kasuto from an interview because that just means the interview was a half-hearted effort to explain something that did not get explained all that well.

If two out of however many towns do not match up, then there is an inconsistency. You cannot disregard two towns and consider the rest or you are being biased on the fact that they are all important, just to cling on to your Aonuma quote. That is biased, and it doesn't work.

The point is that Aonuma said that it happens. Nothing blatently contradicts it. It's a stretch to think up any explanation for how it works, but nothing makes it wrong. And when the current director says that the towns are named after the sages, while nothing contradicts it, then it is correct. Your analogy doesn't even apply here; because Aonuma ISN'T contradicted. His statement works fine; it just don't agree with your preconceived opinions on the placement of AoL. That doesn't make it wrong.

Again, you are clinging to the quote for dear life and avoiding things that DO contradict it. Legends of Zelda have been proven to be passed down. Also, specific traditions have been proven to be passed down if you believe that those traditions are all apart of the same Hyrule, thus far. But I'll go back to the idea that specific names (Spectacle Rock) would not be passed down if they were not in the same Hyrule. The Hyrule with that location was proven to be flooded (as I previously mentioned). That contradicts the possibility of LoZ/AoL taking place in a new Hyrule. And if you consider Aonuma's quote to have to mean that LoZ/AoL takes place on the AT, then to you, Aonuma's quote=LoZ/AoL on new Hyrule, which Spectacle Rock/Island contradicts. O my! I thought nothing contradicted his quote?

 

[ironknuckle1]

Wait ok Spectacle rock is in death mountain in OoT and on it in LoZ. If Spectacle island is 4 whole squares away from where Death Mountain (dragon Roost Island) then there is no way they are alike.

 

[MrMosley]

Wait ok Spectacle rock is in death mountain in OoT and on it in LoZ. If Spectacle island is 4 whole squares away from where Death Mountain (dragon Roost Island) then there is no way they are alike.

Distance is irrelevant. The size of one square in WW is the size of OoT's Hyrule Field. You can't argue distance. And no one ever said Dragon Roost Island was supposed to be Death Mountain. That is speculation, not a fact.

 

[sign of table]

You are also comparing 1 chapter in a book to the entire series. I am comparing one town to another. See the difference? At least the things I'm comparing are essentially the same thing. Like comparing one basketball to another or like comparing one thumb to your other thumb. You're making drastic comparisons and trying to make it work with my comparison of 2 things that are the same. It's not working.

Fine.

My left hand and my right hand are essentially the same, but I find my right hand to be much more important than my left.

All of the towns are the same exact thing in AoL. They are just towns from an old game. The game was not created so that some towns are more important than others. The only thing that gave the "sage" towns importance was Aunouma focusing on them. Until he said anything about it, they were all equal. The fact that there are 2 towns named after completely unimportant name is important. As DL01 said earlier, you can't say that one town is important but the other isn't just because Aunouma didn't say anything about it. They are all towns. They are the same basic thing with different names. To say that those 2 aren't important is just ignorant.

It's not ignorant at all. It's somewhat picking and choosing, yes. But not everything is equal. The two town names have NEVER been given significance. The other five were given significance the moment OoT was released (when the writer for OoT said that they named the sages in OoT that so that players might notice it and think that they could be connected. Like "pseudo secrets". (it's not a 100% exact quote, but that's for the most part what he said in 1998) Apparently Aonuma, the current director, thinks that they should still be important.

Not all similar things are equal. Agahnim being in LttP and LA is quite important. To you it's more important than the 14 exclusive characters shared between OoX/LA. Which is fine. Because some similar things ARE more important.

How about the fact that in WW, Link and Tetra were told to find a new land? How about the fact that Hyrule was flooded and no one knows any history of Hyrule (kind of weird that AoL Hyrule would be a lot like a previously lost Hyrule)?

TWW says that many legends lived on, but the HoT story is just one (or something to that extent).

Funny how LttP Hyrule is identical to OoT Hyrule, but it can't be a sequel/prequel.

How about the fact that you even said that in the Japanese version of the game, the king wished for Hyrule to be erased? When something is erased it usually means it disappears. Kind of hard for this new Hyrule that you are suggesting to be EXACTLY like the old one when the old one was supposed to be "erased"

Makes no sense for LttP Hyrule to be identical to its OoT state when it has to take place after TP or TWW, in which Hyrule is radically different. And AoL Hyrule looks nothing like the Hyrule destroyed in TWW. They only share the same name. They don't even really share similar traditions; because there's hardly any story in the games (apart from the AoL BS... which only works in full on the AT). I mean LoZ/AoL Hyrule only shares one noticeable geographic similarity to anything else, and that's spectacle rock (apart from maybe those god-forsaken comparisons that Pinecove showed between LoZ/AoL and OoX ). Ugh if ZU was working right now I'd search for that picture someone got of the sunken TWW Hyrule and show how eerily similar to TMC it is.

Okay, so even though I told you in two separate posts that I would not disregard an official timeline, you still say that you assume I would? Then why even ask me? Why are you wasting both of our time by asking if your preconcieved notions about my opinion aren't going to change either way? That's kinda ********.

You say you won't disregard an official timeline, but you say that OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP was wrong in 1998, even though it was the official timeline of the time. Only because you think OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL made more sense (I personally think that OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL DID make more sense. But OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP was the official timeline. And that's that. Which is why I say you'd deny any timeline that you think doesn't make as much sense as yours; because you already have, and do.

Also, I'm not going to say "Oh yeah I believe that developer quote because its is a developer quote", just to not seem like a n00b to you. Its like Zemen said, if you want to believe developer quotes that have more in-game evidence to contradict them, then go ahead. But personally, I'll take the more knowledgable way out. I'd rather make a better educated guess by using more facts than just disregarding everything for a developer quote that doesn't much help the situation at the moment.

We're never going to agree on anything... ever lol.

If the developer who creates the timeline says that one thing is more important to the timeline than something else, I'd say that what he says is more important to the timeline is more important to finding out the official timeline (which he would create).

Again, you are clinging to the quote for dear life and avoiding things that DO contradict it.

I had the same timeline as you until I saw that quote, actually. I didn't know that there was a quote from Aonuma heavily implying that AoL goes on the AT.

Meh this isn't getting anywhere. I think developer quotes matter more than anything in trying to find the current developer intended timeline, you clearly don't.

And if you consider Aonuma's quote to have to mean that LoZ/AoL takes place on the AT, then to you, Aonuma's quote=LoZ/AoL on new Hyrule, which Spectacle Rock/Island contradicts. O my! I thought nothing contradicted his quote?

It only contradicts it if you don't assume it's a bland generic name. It doesn't make his quote impossible. Just like nothing made Miyamoto's timeline impossible. Of course it was logical when LttP was released to believe that Ganon was stuck in the SR from the SW to LttP. Because pretty much the entire story progression implied it. But in 1998 the official timeline said otherwise. So the intention behind the game must have changed, and it must have happened differently.

What are you timeline theorizing to try and figure out? The current developer intended timeline that is most likely to be official, or are you only theorizing to try and figure out a timeline that makes the most sense to you, not the most likely to ever be official?

I don't see any point in spending time making a timeline that the director who oversees the series clearly doesn't intend.

 

[Zemen]

Fine.

My left hand and my right hand are essentially the same, but I find my right hand to be much more important than my left.

Personal opinion. Not everyone will think their right hand is more important than their left. That's just YOUR opinion.

The two town names have NEVER been given significance. The other five were given significance the moment OoT was released (when the writer for OoT said that they named the sages in OoT that so that players might notice it and think that they could be connected.

Those characters in OoT were named after towns in AoL so that's why they are important? Funny you should mention that because the 2 towns that you say are not important are also named after characters in OoT. Obviously that was meant to connect too, eh?

It's also funny you should mention developer quotes being so important. This is a little off topic right now but it's more of an example. You don't think that Link getting his hat in Minish Cap is important at all but there is a quote from Nintendo floating around about them saying that we can look at Minish Cap as "the story of how Link gets his hat."

Despite that developer quote, you still don't believe it's important, so why should this developer quote be more important than that one?