^The state of the same Hyrule changing between the two lines is fine.
Hyrule being completely different in two consecutive lines without anything implying it (actually the entire story progression implys the opposite, and so does the intent of the only time OoT=SW was confirmed) is just plain ridiculous.
With that logic I could **** over any common-place theory.
Here's a theory! Actually it's even less ridiculous, as there are even more lines between the lines I'm going to quote, so there's more time for a new Hyrule to appear...
From the Japanese FSA opening. Line 6 "The wind demon Gufuu resurrected overcoming the Four Sword's seal, and kidnapped the princess of the country of Hyrule, Princess Zelda."
Line 7 "Princess Zelda's childhood friend, the boy Link, borrowed the mysterious power of the Four Sword, and at the end of a furious battle, he succeeded in sealing Gufuu away once again."
Line 8 "And so, peace was restored to Hyrule once again, or so everyone thought. However………"
The Hyrule mentioned in line 6 and 8 are the same. Except the "However" is based upon the new Hyrule thousands of years later.
And the Link (same name, but CLEARLY different people) is different from the one in FSA.
This is because of the 2002 quote about FS being the first game in the series, which OBVIOUSLY renders ALL new intent completely and utterly unimportant and of course changes the implications of the text.
Your theory is based on a 1998 quote, and says that that particular intent is kept the same, while everything else related to that story must be changed to keep that theory true.
Your theory says that the Hyrule mentioned in the fifth line of the GBA manual is different from the Hyrule mentioned in the sixth line of the GBA manual, and the rest of the game.
Your theory says that the Hylians, and their language, went extinct in TWW, came back in New Hyrule, and went extinct again, along with all of their relics, legends, and again, language.
My theory is based on a 2002 quote, and says that that particular intent is kept the same, while everything related to that intent in FSA must clearly be different because of the previously made FS quote.
My theory states that the Hyrule (and Link) mentioned in the sixth line of the FSA intro is different than the Hyrule in the rest of the game, but that the "However" is based on the peace beind disturbed in the new Hyrule thousands of years later identical to the old, and that the Link in the game is different.
My theory says that Vaati was sealed in the Old Hyrule mentioned in first-half-way-through the 8th line of the FSA intro, then disturbs the peace in a new Hyrule completely unrelated, yet ironically identical, to the old one.
You know what's sad? Mine makes just as much sense as yours, and is just as evidenced.
The seal, which is the ONLY important thing in the SW if the GBA manual is canon, is DESTROYED in TWW according your theory.
So for your theory to be true, the SW mentioned in the SW has to be completely unrelated and unimportant to the game, as the evil mentioned in the SW (because they took out the word Ganon to clearly make OoT=SW make more sense) is destroyed later, and the Hyrule mentioned in the SW is destroyed.
If everything that happened in the SW is destroyed and gone and unimportant by the time of the actual game, what the hell is the point in actually MENTIONING the SW at all?
No offense to you, Viral (or Pinecove and Erimgard) as I respect you greatly as a theoroist and think that most of your theories are believable and evidenced. But, imo, this theory is absolute fanfic.
You can choose to believe it. But if it's a choice between making up fanfic and believing in something that makes no logical sense at all, or believing that a story is simply screwed over and there is no point fretting over it when concerning the official developer intended timeline, I'll ALWAYS choose the latter.
