First Five Titles - Timeline Issue?

[sign of table]

Just because I pick something and choose to believe it does not mean I have to meet your standards of what is "correct". Really, I don't care one small bit if you think that's ignorant or stupid. I'm picking something that makes sense over a bunch of other stuff that only could be.

That is NOT what I was talking about. Thinking that OoT =/= SW is fine and quite logical. But forcing your opinion as fact (IE OoT = SW is IMPOSSIBLE because of TWW) upon other people is rude, ignorant, and stupid.

Now if you want to set here and continue this discussion as if it were 1998, I could go ahead and tell you that those questions have already been answered. OoT was made to be the SW, which was made to connect to ALttP. ALttP was made to tell how Ganondorf became Ganon. In OoT, we meet Ganondorf. In ALttP we see that Ganondorf went into the SR and obtained the Triforce, transforming it into the DW and himself into the beast Ganon. This all sets up the fact that he is later Ganon in LoZ. That, is what we knew then, regardless of what Miyamoto who probably honestly couldn't tell you the story of each Zelda game, says about the timeline.

If we're going by in-game evidence > developer stuff then OoT could have NEVER EVER been the SW.

That is so hypocritical to say that what Miyamoto says didn't matter because in-game evidence contradicts his timeline, while saying that in 1998 OoT was the SW (when the only evidence was Miyamoto and the writer of the story) even though ALMOST EVERYTHING about the SW contradicted OoT severely.

You think because Miyamoto says the SW is OoT then it was (in 1998) despite the whole of the SW contradicting OoT. But you say that the official timeline of 1998 given by Miyamoto is wrong because in-game evidence disagrees slightly with it (however the only basis for those conclusions (and thus the only thing that makes the in-game evidence mean what you say it does) is based upon MIYAMOTO HIMSELF).

If that's not picking and choosing/double standard, then I don't know what is.

Kinda like you, right?

Tu Quoque, a form of Ad Hominem and a logical fallacy. Look it up.

Kinda like how you can tell everyone that their idea is wrong, but never tell them what your idea is?

I dislike giving my timeline if it's not complete (and it's only in-complete because I have no clue where to put LoZ/AoL, and OoX). But if it's such a big deal, my timeline (apart from LoZ/AoL and OoX) is:
---------TWW/PH
TMC-OoT
---------MM-TP-FSA-LttP/LA

However it changes almost every other day (sometimes thinking at the time that LA is more logical after OoX, sometimes putting TMC before FSA, sometimes putting LoZ/AoL-OoX on the AT, sometimes putting LoZ/AoL-OoX before FSA-LttP, etc) which is why I generally refrain from giving out a timeline because I dislike having a timeline that changes so much, and having a timeline promotes hopeless biasness.

I give my own opinions quite often, however I rarely ever get to debate them as this site is so like-minded (or as Impossible would say, like sheep (or something to that effect...)) that no other opinions are ever given unless I play devil's advocate and debate for something I DON'T believe in (since Erimgard and Pinecove don't comment enough).

Just because this site doesn't meet your expectations doesn't give you the right to come here and complain. Here's a piece of advice, if you don't like it so much, then why are you here?

Because if I'm here then my internet is going slow as hell so I'm not able to play WoW, and there is no notable discussion on ZU or LA.

Oh and just to nitpick, that wasn't advice, it was a question

Now if you would like to tell me how it does make sense, rather than saying it fills some random gap, then I'd be delighted to listen.

Seeing the Triforce flying away to the SR after completing its task to help restore "reason" (and doing what it was supposed to do) makes a lot more sense than the individual pieces of the Triforce magically flying away after the owner has died, despite contradictory evidence in LoZ and TWW, imo.

If we did then there would be no point in discussing.

Well considering we've never changed each others views about... well... anything (not counting small things such as exact quotes, and such) there may not be any point in discussing, as we share completely different views on the way theorizing should be done and what matters more than other things (apparently you're not looking for the developer intended timeline... I am... almost any (and so far every) debate we will ever/have ever had/have will and has come down to ME: "X doesn't work because Aonuma/Miyamoto (imo essentially God) says it doesn't" and YOU: "Aonuma/Miyamoto are wrong because of X).

Because we all know that the people who have created the series have made mistakes. Even just tiny ones that involve mistranslations or, in Miyamoto's case, putting ALTTP after LoZ/AoL even though it goes completely against the intent of ALTTP being a prequel that was given by the very developers who stated the opposite.

I can't imagine the official timeline being "wrong". Especially when all releases (up until freaken TWW, anyway) fix gaps and problems in the Miyamoto timeline.

Do you really think the average gamer (which all games in the world are made for) would EVER notice that?

Considering TMC Hylian is a slightly altered form of Japanese, Japanese kids might have noticed it.

The writer for OoT said that he wanted to include "pseudo secrets" that are difficult to find but are important (and he gave an example by saying that the sages of the SW era have towns named after them in AoL).

It's not evidence, it's just a reuse of sprites.

What makes reuse of sprites unimportant to an all in-game evidenced timeline that has nothing to do with developer intent that would disregard said "evidence"?

Like I said earlier, some evidence is OBVIOUSLY weighed more than others.

Of course. But if there isn't a higher authority who can say what matters and what doesn't in an official timeline, what makes any piece of evidence more important than any other?

Creators make every game in mind with the idea of "what will the average gamer be able to comprehend?"

Except the timeline isn't there for the average gamer. And the few average gamers who try and figure out the timeline are usually disasters (OcarinaHero, GameTrailers, anyone who theorizes anywhere other than ZU/ZI/LA/ZD, etc). And according to the writer of OoT, they try and include difficult to find things that could be of importance.

They don't make the Zelda games JUST for the hardcore Zelda fans.

Except the timeline is.

Ask ANY casual Zelda gamer if they've EVER heard of the split timeline.

I bet atleast 95% of them will say no.

It's about the first five titles and their issue with the timeline. NOW based on what we knew in the past. Miyamoto said what his order was in 1998, but we aren't worrying about what the official order was in 1998 but you seem to keep saying that no matter what that was the order in 1998, but we're wondering what the order is NOW. You keep bringing up 1998 when we are focusing on the here and now.

Sorry, then.

I read the OP a month ago and haven't read it again, so I didn't remember. All I did remember is that almost all of the debating that had gone on in this thread had been about the way it went in 1998.

If the game box is not considered to be canon because it is NoA, and the player's guide is also not considered to be canon because it from NoA, then I would like to raise another question.

The NoJ box implies that it went LttP-LoZ, too.

Do you consider statements released by a spokesman of Nintendo of America to be considered Legitimate/Canon? In particular, statements made by Daniel Owsen?

A few things: 1) LOLNoA 2) Dan Owsen? The dude who oversaw the translation of LttP and screw over the text of NoA version so badly? 3) In 1999 Dan Owsen said that the timeline went OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP and that the 1991 box was wrong. 4) The only person I could even ever IMAGINE trusting as canon from NoA would be Bill Trinen. According to him, however, OoT is the SW (as recent as the release of TP). And according to him TMC is the origin of Link's hat...

 

[Zemen]

Considering TMC Hylian is a slightly altered form of Japanese, Japanese kids might have noticed it.

The key word there was "might."

That doesn't mean the other large amount of players who are not Japanese would. Even then, I can honestly say I have never looked over any of the books in the library, even knowing that there is a Triumph Fork book. I have not once ever gone through that part of the game thinking to myself "I wonder what these books say."

Do you really think the normal gamer will? Even ones that could read the books (which would still take a bit of translating since it wasn't exact Japanese)? The answer is no.

Give me an honest answer. Have you ever actually looked up the Triumph Fork book and figured out exactly which book it is and translate it for yourself or did you hear it from somebody else and never knew what it was? I'll bet you heard it from someone and would have been completely oblivious otherwise.

To this day, I have never seen this book or cared to try and find it.

The writer for OoT said that he wanted to include "pseudo secrets" that are difficult to find but are important (and he gave an example by saying that the sages of the SW era have towns named after them in AoL).

The town names in AoL to the sage's names in OoT aren't very hard to figure out. You see 5 towns that happen to be named after 5 of the sages in OoT. That's not a difficult to find secret. That's straight forward that any average gamer could see without having to translate or research, thus my point remains that I believe that evidence that doesn't require me to translate Hylian/broken Japanese to English is important and other, much more obvious things are.

What makes reuse of sprites unimportant to an all in-game evidenced timeline that has nothing to do with developer intent that would disregard said "evidence"?

Ummm I'm pretty sure I explained that. Doesn't ever Mario game use many of the same monsters? Doesn't many of the sonic games use the same monsters? Doesn't pretty much every game in every series ever in history use the same monsters throughout their games? OoX and LA had the EXACT same graphics engine. Rather than remaking sprites for monsters, they could easily have just reused the sprites from a previous game, thus using some monsters that are only used in those 2 games. It's not evidence, its logic.

Of course. But if there isn't a higher authority who can say what matters and what doesn't in an official timeline, what makes any piece of evidence more important than any other?

Evidence that takes a bit more thought without going overboard seems to be much more important, to me, than evidence that sends you on a wild goose chase (triumph forks in MC). I also listen to what others say and believe about certain pieces of evidence. It's not as if my entire timeline is based solely on what I want to be right. I take other people's opinions and many of those people are people that do look for a developer intended timeline. If what a developer says fits what I, and many others, theorize than I take it much more seriously than when a developer says something that virtually no one agrees with.

Except the timeline isn't there for the average gamer. And the few average gamers who try and figure out the timeline are usually disasters (OcarinaHero, GameTrailers, anyone who theorizes anywhere other than ZU/ZI/LA/ZD, etc).

The timeline isn't made for the average gamer, you're right, but it is made so that the average gamer can see how the games connect. In every series there should be something that makes it obvious to the gamer that it connects to another game (if that is the intention of the series).

The average gamer should be able to play OoT and then play WW and notice that WW takes place some time after OoT.

The average gamer should be able to come up with a general idea of the timeline, even if it's wrong it should be close enough to a generally accepted timeline.

And according to the writer of OoT, they try and include difficult to find things that could be of importance.

Translating a random book in the library that you spend all of 3 minutes in seems WAY to hidden to be of any importance.

You're looking for the developer intended timeline and you have even stated yourself that one of the developers said that MC can be seen as being the origins of Link's hat. You shouldn't even be arguing anything if you're looking for the developer intended timeline.

Ask ANY casual Zelda gamer if they've EVER heard of the split timeline.

I bet atleast 95% of them will say no.

But when they play OoT, WW and TP I bet they will notice that something is out of the ordinary. That's close enough and that's what the games should do for the average gamer.

 

[MrMosley]

That is NOT what I was talking about. Thinking that OoT =/= SW is fine and quite logical. But forcing your opinion as fact (IE OoT = SW is IMPOSSIBLE because of TWW) upon other people is rude, ignorant, and stupid.

I'm not forcing my opinion. I'm saying flat out that I believe WW makes OoT impossible to be the SW. No one has to believe that, so nothing is forced.

If we're going by in-game evidence > developer stuff then OoT could have NEVER EVER been the SW.

Exactly.

You think because Miyamoto says the SW is OoT then it was (in 1998) despite the whole of the SW contradicting OoT. But you say that the official timeline of 1998 given by Miyamoto is wrong because in-game evidence disagrees slightly with it (however the only basis for those conclusions (and thus the only thing that makes the in-game evidence mean what you say it does) is based upon MIYAMOTO HIMSELF).

Slightly? I didn't say OoT was the SW. I said it was made to be the SW.

Lets look at things that ALttP's version of the SW told us:
* It was an actual war between the races of Hyrule to find the entrance to the Golden Land (Sacred Realm)
* Ganondorf found this entrance and discovered the Triforce
* Ganondorf's wish turned the SR into the Dark World, as well as all its inhabitants into evil creatures.
* Ganondorf himself was transformed into his pig-beast form Ganon
* Ganon did not come back out of the Dark World after it was sealed during the SW. (look to the VC description of the game I gave earlier, which flat out says this).

Now, OoT's events, compared to those of the SW's design, are as follows:
* Ganondorf did find his way into the SR.
* Ganondorf did wish on the Triforce and apparently, which turned the SR into a realm of evil (hence the Temples being filled with evil).

What did OoT get wrong?
* There was no war. The only hint of a war was a dying Hylian knight in Hyrule Market, that of which was hidden and you never actually had to see or talk to. There was no war between races what-so-ever.
* Ganondorf did not get transformed into pig-beast Ganon. In OoT, he only shows that he can transform into Ganon by using the most of his Triforce power. However, this contradicts the original SW story, which says that Ganondorf was transformed into Ganon-form permanently.
* Ganondorf came back out of the (evil realm?) after his seal at the end of OoT (during WW's BS and during WW). This breaks the entire idea of the SW.

And, even today, that same story of the SW applies as it did when ALttP first came out. Ganon cannot come back out after his seal until the events of ALttP or else that event does not count as the SW. Therefore, WW makes it impossible for OoT to be the SW.

I dislike giving my timeline if it's not complete (and it's only in-complete because I have no clue where to put LoZ/AoL, and OoX).

The two biggest things you have argued lately are the placement of LoZ/AoL, and OoX, in which you have mainly argued against everyone elses ideas but still haven't even placed them yourself. That's like complaining about the winning candidate if you don't vote.

Seeing the Triforce flying away to the SR after completing its task to help restore "reason" (and doing what it was supposed to do) makes a lot more sense than the individual pieces of the Triforce magically flying away after the owner has died, despite contradictory evidence in LoZ and TWW, imo.

I can sort of see where this would make sense. Your argument is that if the Triforce is together, it can then go to the SR, but not individually. This does make sense, as individually, we have seen the Triforce pieces to be scattered about Hyrule. The only contradiction here is that at the end of AoL, the Triforce is together and a wish is made, but it isn't shown to go anywhere. One who believes AoL--OoX could say that this makes sense, considering it stayed in Hyrule, which is why it is in Hyrule Castle at the beginning of OoX. Alternatively, you could say that it did go somewhere (the SR), which would lead into ALttP. In the end, its all about how you interpret the nature of the Triforce. Personally, there are too many other reasons that set ALttP as a prequel to LoZ/AoL to make the whole "nature of the Triforce" theory valid.

4) The only person I could even ever IMAGINE trusting as canon from NoA would be Bill Trinen. According to him, however, OoT is the SW (as recent as the release of TP). And according to him TMC is the origin of Link's hat...

Which is obvious fallacy as we know that Link's clothes mainly originated from the Kokiri. This is why you can't really trust many things that are said by any developer unless they actually make sense. I have no problem believing the developers, but I wouldn't base my entire theory off of a developer quote unless it made sense (i.e. the Split Timeline).

 

[sign of table]

Give me an honest answer. Have you ever actually looked up the Triumph Fork book and figured out exactly which book it is and translate it for yourself or did you hear it from somebody else and never knew what it was?

The latter; because I couldn't read Japanese.

However I DID read a lot of the TP Hylian, as that was an altered form of English.

The town names in AoL to the sage's names in OoT aren't very hard to figure out. You see 5 towns that happen to be named after 5 of the sages in OoT. That's not a difficult to find secret. That's straight forward that any average gamer could see without having to translate or research, thus my point remains that I believe that evidence that doesn't require me to translate Hylian/broken Japanese to English is important and other, much more obvious things are.

Why would these "pseudo secrets" be limited to things like the sage names and simpler? I'd say there are quite possibly more complicated pseudo secrets that have been added.

Daphnes' possible reference to the name tradition, the similarities between BSes of the mirrors in FSA and TP, oracles being wide out in the open, the two seals from OoT and the SW intended to be the same (whether or not they are anymore), etc

There are lots of things like that. Some may not be important, some may be. However what would they be important FOR? I can't understand picking and choosing evidence when you don't have a higher authority on the matter to base those decisions on. IE I don't think Triumph Forks matter to the timeline Aonuma would make. But if I don't care about the timeline Aonuma would make, then why would I disregard Triumph Forks? If I'm making a timeline based upon connections between games I can't imagine why Triumph Forks WOULDN'T matter if I don't have the excuse (for lack of a better more descriptive word) of developer intent to say it doesn't matter.

Saying it doesn't matter to the timeline... WHAT TIMELINE? To you clearly not the official timeline, so how does anything in the games NOT matter if you're not looking for the developer intended timeline?

I think we just have completely different mindsets on theorizing. I want the timeline I make to be confirmed (or have the highest chance of being confirmed) by Nintendo/Aonuma/Miyamoto. Thus I can't imagine Aonuma would ever think of Triumph Forks as important to the timeline he releases as official. However if I don't take developer intent into account what base do I have to say that something doesn't matter?

Meh I'm tired and I'm rambling...

Ummm I'm pretty sure I explained that. Doesn't ever Mario game use many of the same monsters? Doesn't many of the sonic games use the same monsters? Doesn't pretty much every game in every series ever in history use the same monsters throughout their games? OoX and LA had the EXACT same graphics engine. Rather than remaking sprites for monsters, they could easily have just reused the sprites from a previous game, thus using some monsters that are only used in those 2 games. It's not evidence, its logic.

Of course they wouldn't matter in a developer intended timeline for the exact reason you listed. But you're ONLY looking for things in-game, not out-of-game (such as developer intent/quotes), so why would any of these references not matter? They're not intended to be references, but intent means nothing to you.

But when they play OoT, WW and TP I bet they will notice that something is out of the ordinary. That's close enough and that's what the games should do for the average gamer.

Except you HAVE to know the Aonuma/Miyamoto interviews to even really conceive of a split timeline (IIRC non of the split timeline theories came around until Miyamoto's quote in 2002). So NO average gamer who JUST plays the game is ever going to get anything close to the real timeline.

And what IS the real timeline, by definition? I just can't imagine that the REAL timeline would be anything other than what Aonuma/Miyamoto want.

Anyways... this is getting repetitive and going no-where.

I guess looking for an all in-game timeline is fine, but... none of our debates are ever going to get anywhere when we are both looking for different things, though.

I'm not forcing my opinion. I'm saying flat out that I believe WW makes OoT impossible to be the SW. No one has to believe that, so nothing is forced.

Are you going to correct me and call me close minded if I say "Well OoX makes LttP/LA flatout impossible"?

Exactly.

Then why would the timeline have to go OoT-LttP-LoZ? The seal was made in the SW, you say that OoT couldn't be the SW (which going off of only in-game evidence it couldn't be), where the hell did LttP Ganon come from? OoT-SW-LttP? That makes no sense at all. Ganondorf gets sealed in the SR with the ToP and becomes Ganon, then Ganondorf attacks the SR with a group of theives and steals the Triforce, gets sealed, then LttP happens.

See the flaw in that? Although using your almighty in-game evidence OoT CAN'T be the SW. So it would have to be that, or OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP.

Hell OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP would make MORE sense. OoT happens. Ganon steals the ToP. LoZ Ganon has the ToP with the exact same title. Ganon gets killed. According to you the Triforce can just teleport to the SR without reason. Then new Ganondorf attacks the SR, gets the Triforce, gets sealed, then gets out and gets killed.

So to summarize:
Believing in OoT=SW-LttP-LoZ because of in-game evidence would be a terrible double standard and anyone who does this is a hypocrite and loses all credibility on the subject.
Believing in OoT-SW-LttP-LoZ because of in-game evidence is ******** yet not hypocritical like the timeline above.
Believing in OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP because of in-game evidence is stupid, yet less ******** than the timeline above and not hypocritical as well.
Believing in OoT=SW-LoZ-LttP has a problem with Ganon that is remedied in later releases, is not hypocritical in the slightest, and was the official timeline.

Which of those four makes the most sense?

Therefore, WW makes it impossible for OoT to be the SW.

Except according to the LttP BS it was NEVER the SW as: 1) Ganondorf never killed any Gerudo. 2) Ganondorf of OoT never got a wish. 3) Was given the wrong title. 4) Ganon never got the full Triforce 5) The King of Hyrule never called upon the sages. 5) The Master Sword WAS found. 6) Ganon getting sealed took place 7 years after he took the ToP. 7) There was no battle. 8) The knights weren't extinct. 9) It was never called the SW.

According to in-game evidence, OoT=SW is one of the most unlikely and illogical things in the ENTIRE series. So ANY timeline that has OoT-LttP-LoZ would HAVE to have the SW happen between OoT and LttP. Which would make absolutely NO sense. Thus, according to in-game evidence, the simplest timeline of 1998 would HAVE to be OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP.

Right?

Or does ALL of that sound COMPLETELY ridiculous?

The two biggest things you have argued lately are the placement of LoZ/AoL, and OoX, in which you have mainly argued against everyone elses ideas but still haven't even placed them yourself. That's like complaining about the winning candidate if you don't vote.

How can I get a full idea on what makes the most sense without looking at it from all sides and debating both sides equally? I made the mistake before of creating my timeline without looking at both sides equally before, and it didn't turn out well. I can't get an idea about the way something works until I debate it and see someone else's point of view first. That is why I dislike giving out a timeline so much.

I can sort of see where this would make sense. Your argument is that if the Triforce is together, it can then go to the SR, but not individually. This does make sense, as individually, we have seen the Triforce pieces to be scattered about Hyrule. The only contradiction here is that at the end of AoL, the Triforce is together and a wish is made, but it isn't shown to go anywhere. One who believes AoL--OoX could say that this makes sense, considering it stayed in Hyrule, which is why it is in Hyrule Castle at the beginning of OoX. Alternatively, you could say that it did go somewhere (the SR), which would lead into ALttP. In the end, its all about how you interpret the nature of the Triforce. Personally, there are too many other reasons that set ALttP as a prequel to LoZ/AoL to make the whole "nature of the Triforce" theory valid.

Except we've only seen the Triforce fly away after what it was needed for was fulfilled.

TWW: Daphnes finished with it, the old Hyrule arc ended.
OoX: Link defeated Ganon and restored peace to Hyrule, fulfilling what the Triforce sent Link to do.

I agree that it's a bit of a stretch. But considering it fills a gap within the official timeline (which would be there no matter what, anyway), is consistent with the rest of the series, fairly evidenced, so it's quite believable.

Basically pre-LttP LoZ vs post LttP LoZ kinda depends on which timeline you put LttP in.

But for 1998, what sets it up as a prequel to LoZ based purely upon in-game evidence? Since we've established that based on in-game evidence OoT likely wouldn't have been the SW in 1998, what keeps LoZ after LttP? The only thing that would put LoZ after LttP would be if there was a direct connection between LttP and OoT, which we've established as very unlikely, anyways according to in-game evidence.

 

[MrMosley]

Then why would the timeline have to go OoT-LttP-LoZ? The seal was made in the SW, you say that OoT couldn't be the SW (which going off of only in-game evidence it couldn't be), where the hell did LttP Ganon come from? OoT-SW-LttP? That makes no sense at all. Ganondorf gets sealed in the SR with the ToP and becomes Ganon, then Ganondorf attacks the SR with a group of theives and steals the Triforce, gets sealed, then LttP happens.

See the flaw in that? Although using your almighty in-game evidence OoT CAN'T be the SW. So it would have to be that, or OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP.

You have to take into consideration the Split Timeline, as well as TP and FSA, whereas the events of the SW would not take place on the AT anymore (by my beliefs). One has to consider that now, you have TP and FSA coming between ALttP, which are two big issues to deal with. I haven't completed FSA, but I do not believe it would be very reliable to consider it the SW, as it contradicts things just like OoT does. However, I would consider this:

OoT/MM--TP--Fs/FSA--(SW)--ALttP

Because the standards of the SW still have to apply with all of these titles, and in this order I believe it can work. Of course, certain things have to be made up. My theory is that he went looking for the Trident in/during FSA because he had lost the ToP in TP. Sometime between TP and FSA, all the pieces of the Triforce has recollected in the SR, and Ganondorf now was seeking alternate sources of power. Once he is released from his seal inside the Four Sword between the events of FSA and ALttP, the Seal/Imprissoning War occurs. Ganon reverts back to his human form in Ganondorf, finds access into the SR, and makes his wish. That is when he becomes Ganon permanently, and is sealed in the SR until the events of ALttP.

This is, of course, a bit shakey and I really don't like having to guess so much and make things up. However, this is what I have came up with.

 

[Pinecove]

Zelda no Video documentary was 2007 ? I thought it was like 2003.

It was finished being translated 2007.

Pinecove... I'd expect you to not use NoA...

He's just as dead in LoZ as he is in LttP.

Okay fine re-phrase: ...EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT HIS SOUL IS DESTROYED AT THE END OF AST!!!!!!

He was completely and utterly destroyed after LoZ and stayed that way after AoL so what's your point?

No he wasn't. In AoL they could revive him. After AST that's impossible.

I also haven't seen anyone here say anything about them being completely right or acting like they are absolutely right with no doubts. I haven't gotten that vibe from anyone in this argument except maybe Pinecove.

Excuse me then for being completely un-biased in this discussion and saying that all my opinions might be wrong.

Also, just because we are talking about the first five titles doesn't mean we are talking about there intended positions in 1998. It means we're talking about there positions now. There is no point in arguing something from 11 years ago when we know it's probably not the same now. You can argue how the timeline went LoZ/AoL-ALTTP in 1998 all you want but that doesn't progress or help what the timeline is now.

You want to discuss the current timeline? Then make another thread. Original intent helps us find out what intent now is.

Yeah, the English one says the same thing. And this is what the VC says about A Link to the Past:


Quote:
Originally Posted by VC description of ALttP
Return to an age of magic and heroes! When an evil magician named Agahnim begins kidnapping young maidens in Hyrule in a quest to break the imprisoning seal on Ganon, a young boy named Link is called upon to stop him. Link must venture into twisting mazes, dungeons, palaces and shadowy forests as he searches for the maidens and Princess Zelda. Traversing both Light and Dark Worlds, he must navigate eight dark dungeons, fighting evil enemies and huge bosses. Help our hero prevent Ganon and Agahnim from shattering Hyrule forever. Whether you are a young knight, a heroine-in-training or a seasoned warrior, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past will delight!

Which says straight up that Ganon was sealed (Imprisoning seal, signifying the seal cast during the Imprisoning War) and Agahnim was trying to break him out. The backstory of ALttP and the in-game text tells about Ganondorf going in, getting sealed, and never coming back out UNTIL the evens of ALttP. Apparently, the VC's description agrees.

Alright, alright, no VC. Sorry I got that wrong.

You didn't respond to my points.

I'll finish this post tomorow.

 

[Zemen]

You want to discuss the current timeline?.

Hmm seeing as how that's what the point of this thread is about (the placement of the first five titles based on original intent) then yes, I do want to discuss the current timeline. Read the OP. It deals with the CURRENT position of the first five titles. Why would I make a thread to talk about what this thread is already talking about? Isn't that against the rules?

What is AST?

 

[Viral]

Ancient Stone Tablets:

http://www.zeldawiki.org/BS_The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Ancient_Stone_Tablets

 

[Pinecove]

@Zemen: I accept your chllenge!

/TWW/PH-LoZ/-OoS/OoA-TMC-FS/FSA-ALttP/LA
OoT
\MM-TP

is my timeline. Try me.

@everyone else: this is a debate between Zemen and I only. I don't want to apear like I'm making a war, but I want a fair fight that isn't 5 to one, no offence.

 

[MrMosley]

@Zemen: I accept your chllenge!

/TWW/PH-LoZ/-OoS/OoA-TMC-FS/FSA-ALttP/LA
OoT
\MM-TP

is my timeline. Try me.

@everyone else: this is a debate between Zemen and I only. I don't want to apear like I'm making a war, but I want a fair fight that isn't 5 to one, no offence.

You can't limit a thread to two people. That's actually what we want to avoid. If your going to have some kind of one on one, that should be done through PM's.

 

[Pinecove]

Hmm that's weird I thought I replied to this....I'm sure I did...maybe I just didn't post....

Okay whatever then: have at it.

 

[sign of table]

No he wasn't. In AoL they could revive him. After AST that's impossible.

Explain a little further? (my knowledge of what happens in AST is less than impressive...)

Might as well say a few things...

I assume you believe that OoT is the SW... I won't get into that... directly, anyway.
Do you think that TRR is canon?
Is the water on the map of FSA relevant?
What is YOUR exact reasoning for the timeline?
Do you believe that the TP mirror is the same as the FSA mirror?
Why is LttP Hyrule so ridiculously similar to pre-flood Hyrule?


EDIT: Damn it, I hit the tab button by accident, then hit something while it was highlighting the post button... I had more to say.

Check on my edit in a little bit.

 

[Pinecove]

Explain a little further? (my knowledge of what happens in AST is less than impressive...)

Ganon's soul gets obilterated with the silver arrows. Period.

About the timeline: Zemen and I are going at it in PM's don't bother.

 

[Zemen]

Ganon's soul gets obilterated with the silver arrows. Period.

I've never heard of AST til you mentioned it here. Is it even canon?

 

[MrMosley]

It was mentioned in the Zelda no video documentary 2 years ago, so yes it's Canon.

That's not true. The fact that it was mentioned there does not make it canon. Although the story could be taken as canon or non-canon, the emphasis that is put on the game itself is what makes it canon, IMO.

Here's a rundown of AST:

You played as yourself (not Link, but a character from the "real world"). You wore normal clothes and a hat on backwards. You could play as a boy or girl.
- Taking a Zelda game and making it right out to be a video game by putting a "real world" character in it should obviously prove it non-canon.

The temples you went through in the game were mixed up from the original design in ALttP. Some temples were in different locations, and none of the temples had the same setup. For example, Death Mountain itself was like a temple.
- It is basically impossible to change the entire setup of all temples in Hyrule between ALttP and AST. Its even more impossible to stick temples in locations where they never were in ALttP. This also makes it non-canon, IMO.

You collected a bunch of tablets throughout the game from each temple. Characters also talked a lot about the hero from ALttP. All of that was canon. In the end, you fought Ganon's spirit (somehow). Who had the exact same powers as regular Ganon did.
- There's not really any problem here, other than the fact that Ganon's spirit having the same exact powers as he did with a body. That shouldn't happen, IMO. Also, if Ganon was threatening Hyrule after ALttP, I believe that would have been important and documented, yet it wasn't.

In my opinion, you can't take a Zelda game and say that its literally a video game, and pull a character from the real world into it, and consider it canon. That's the biggest thing that makes AST non-canon for me. Also, besides that documentary, the game has never been mentioned elsewhere and its importance has never been emphasized. I would think that if AST were important, it would have been made more available to all audiences of the Zelda universe. And last, AST literally has no ties to any other Zelda games other than ALttP, where it tells some backstory about what happened in that game. Nothing in it is even important enough to tie in with the rest of the series or a timeline, unless you wanted to use it as a crutch to prove ALttP/LA, because it does talk about Link leaving Hyrule after that game.