First Five Titles - Timeline Issue?

[Mases]

Hey guys, I was glancing over Caleb of Asui's thread, and read some of the posts. This is part of the edited original post.

5. Ocarina of Time
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously before everything so far. Nobody's about to say otherwise.
Order so Far: OoT--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

5.1 Miyamoto Order
- Discussion Closed -
Details: We hit a snag when the creator came out with an order contradicting what we already have. He says OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP, with LA going anywhere.
Conclusion: Ocarina of Time was originally meant as the Seal War, with The Legend of Zelda as a lesser part of it, explaining what happens to the Triforce. At least, this was true at the time.
Order so Far: OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA

Based on what we knew at the time, and what we know now... What actually has more 'evidence' to support that order. Are either of these universally accepted?

I found it to be rather awkward that what appears to be rational conclusions of what we had after 5 games... and what Miyamoto stated differ.

I didn't want to interrupt the other thread... so i made this one. If there really is a lot more to this, I was curious to know if there was interest in giving a rather detailed explanation. Perhaps with the inclusion of images/quotes from the games/manuals/interviews, we could produce a rather detailed article that could be posted at the site.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Zemen]

Evidence for ALTTP to be a distant prequel to LoZ/AoL:

1. ALTTP gives us background on Hyrule, the Triforce and even Ganon. It seems obvious that this was meant to be a prequel to the first 2 games so that we know the history of Hyrule and can better understand LoZ/AoL because of it.

2. The original box specifically calls Link and Zelda in ALTTP predescessors of the previous Link and Zelda and at that time there were only 2 other games (that were direct connections to each other) so this obviously puts ALTTP before LoZ/AoL. SoJ says that someone from Nintendo stated that the original box was wrong but he has yet to post the specific quote or link to the quote to prove that. Of course, in the GBA version of ALTTP this predecessor thing is left out, but that could be just for the fact that we should already know it's a prequel and they didn't need to reiterate it.

3. The BS of ALTTP doesn't work with LoZ or AoL. It talks about the SW and how everyone was trying to get into the SR to get the Triforce. This makes no sense with LoZ/AoL going before it because there is no SR in either of those games.

4. Ganon is dead at the end of LoZ and his minions fail to revive him in AoL so if ALTTP goes after those games then there is absolutely no explanation as to why Ganon is just randomly alive again.

Evidence for ALTTP to be a distant sequel to LoZ/AoL:

1. Miyamoto said so...

2. Number 1 is the only evidence.



Doesn't seem like a very tough decision to me. People will argue that what Miyamoto says goes because he is the God of the series but Aunouma is the one that deals with the timeline stuff, Miyamoto only deals with gameplay. He told us that himself and Aunouma has not made any suggestions that ALTTP is a distant sequel to LoZ/AoL nor did the retconned version change anything that would suggest such a thing.

In fact, if anything, the retconned version makes it clearer that it goes before LoZ/AoL. There is obvious connections between FSA and ALTTP. Connections that make it seem impossible for any game to go between FSA and ALTTP and since FS is a direct prequel to FSA, the timeline would have to look like this for those games.

TP-LoZ/AoL-FS/FSA-ALTTP

And that just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

 

[sign of table]

^Unless you place the majority of the games on the AT. With AT timelines LoZ/AoL before LttP makes quite a lot of sense.

I wouldn't say that Miyamoto's quote is very valid anymore. But in 1998 that's the way it went. Period.

Confirmed two different times by two different people.

Whether it made more sense than OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL.... ehhhhhh

OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL made much, much more sense, imo. But in 1998-1999 I'd say it was fact (as Miyamoto said it).

2. The original box specifically calls Link and Zelda in ALTTP predescessors of the previous Link and Zelda and at that time there were only 2 other games (that were direct connections to each other) so this obviously puts ALTTP before LoZ/AoL. SoJ says that someone from Nintendo stated that the original box was wrong but he has yet to post the specific quote or link to the quote to prove that. Of course, in the GBA version of ALTTP this predecessor thing is left out, but that could be just for the fact that we should already know it's a prequel and they didn't need to reiterate it.

Dan Owsen, the translator for NoA, said that the box was wrong (that was in 1999).

1. ALTTP gives us background on Hyrule, the Triforce and even Ganon. It seems obvious that this was meant to be a prequel to the first 2 games so that we know the history of Hyrule and can better understand LoZ/AoL because of it.

I agree. In '91 LttP-LoZ/AoL made a lot more sense.

4. Ganon is dead at the end of LoZ and his minions fail to revive him in AoL so if ALTTP goes after those games then there is absolutely no explanation as to why Ganon is just randomly alive again.

Ganon is dead at the end of LttP, by the way.

He told us that himself and Aunouma has not made any suggestions that ALTTP is a distant sequel to LoZ/AoL nor did the retconned version change anything that would suggest such a thing.

Aonuma has clearly suggested, however, that LoZ/AoL go on the AT, by the way

Although that's more of a matter for the other thread.

So my opinion: OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL made way more sense, but Miyamoto's intended order at the time was OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP. Made less sense, but it was fact.

 

[Hayzer]

TP-LoZ/AoL-FS/FSA-ALTTP

And that just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Actually this does make sense if you think enough about it. The only holes we have is how Ganondorf in TP becomes Ganon, and the factor of the SW, but again, the SW doesn't quite fit on either argument. But that's it.

TP:
--ToP leaves Ganondorf
--Ganondorf presumably dies

LoZ:
--Ganon (possibly the same as TP Ganondorf) steals ToP from HC
--ToC in Great Palace
--ToW collected by Link
--Ganon dies

AoL:
--Ganon dead
--Triforce untied in HC

OoX:
--Triforce in HC
--Twinrova attempts to revive Ganon
--Ganon destroyed (marks the end of LoZ Ganon)

FS/FSA:
--A new Ganondorf becomes Ganon
--Triforce apparently in SR
--Ganon sealed in FS

ALttP:
--FSA Ganon = ALttP Ganon
--FS breaks (as seen in GBA ALttP)
--Triforce still in SR
--Ganon killed

I don't see a problem with it at all. However it also works the other way around:

TP:
--ToP leaves Ganondorf
--Ganondorf presumably dies

FS/FSA:
--A new Ganondorf becomes Ganon
--Triforce apparently in SR
--Ganon sealed in FS

ALttP:
--FSA Ganon = ALttP Ganon
--FS breaks (as seen in GBA ALttP)
--Triforce still in SR
--Ganon killed

LoZ:
--Ganon (possibly the same as TP Ganondorf) steals ToP from HC
--ToC in Great Palace
--ToW collected by Link
--Ganon dies

AoL:
--Ganon dead
--Triforce untied in HC

OoX:
--Triforce in HC
--Twinrova attempts to revive Ganon
--Ganon destroyed (marks the end of LoZ Ganon)

So in the end it all comes down to how you look at it.

But that's just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Zemen]

It makes more sense to have FS/FSA after TP because FSA seems to be talking about a completely different Ganondorf which would make sense seeing as how Ganondorf in TP is dead.

 

[Mases]

Thanks for the responses guys, but I'd like to keep this pertaining to ONLY the first five Zelda titles and what we knew then and earlier.

So my opinion: OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL made way more sense, but Miyamoto's intended order at the time was OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP. Made less sense, but it was fact.

This seems to be the consensus...

However, one thing I'd like to add to this discussion... Let's rewind back to 1998... and lets hypothetically say the NOA A Link to the Past Box was completely blank. [Since it has been said that it was inaccurate... lets assume it never existed]...

So back in 1998, discounting Miyamoto's specific claim, AND the back of the box from the NOA version of A Link To The Past... do you think there is universal consensus of what the logical timeline would have been at the time?

 

[MrMosley]

So back in 1998, discounting Miyamoto's specific claim, AND the back of the box from the NOA version of A Link To The Past... do you think there is universal consensus of what the logical timeline would have been at the time?

Well the back of the Japanese box said basically the same thing as the NoA one.

But anyway, I would still consider ALttP a prequel. There's no evidence that would make sense for LoZ to come after ALttP. ALttP was meant, and created under the basis, to show how Ganon and the Triforce came to be. In LoZ, we just seen Ganon already there, and we seen the Triforce already there. ALttP showed players how these things got to that point in LoZ.

Even if it were 1998, and had I heard Miyamoto's quote, I would have probably went back, played the games again, and still believed he was wrong. He could have messed up, people make mistakes. Especially when what they say really has no value or evidence to support it, while the only other alternative (ALttP--LoZ/AoL) has tons of evidence and is so obvious that its almost ridiculous to consider otherwise.

 

[Master Kokiri 9]

Evidence for ALTTP to be a distant prequel to LoZ/AoL:

1. ALTTP gives us background on Hyrule, the Triforce and even Ganon. It seems obvious that this was meant to be a prequel to the first 2 games so that we know the history of Hyrule and can better understand LoZ/AoL because of it.

2. The original box specifically calls Link and Zelda in ALTTP predescessors of the previous Link and Zelda and at that time there were only 2 other games (that were direct connections to each other) so this obviously puts ALTTP before LoZ/AoL. SoJ says that someone from Nintendo stated that the original box was wrong but he has yet to post the specific quote or link to the quote to prove that. Of course, in the GBA version of ALTTP this predecessor thing is left out, but that could be just for the fact that we should already know it's a prequel and they didn't need to reiterate it.

3. The BS of ALTTP doesn't work with LoZ or AoL. It talks about the SW and how everyone was trying to get into the SR to get the Triforce. This makes no sense with LoZ/AoL going before it because there is no SR in either of those games.

4. Ganon is dead at the end of LoZ and his minions fail to revive him in AoL so if ALTTP goes after those games then there is absolutely no explanation as to why Ganon is just randomly alive again.

Evidence for ALTTP to be a distant sequel to LoZ/AoL:

1. Miyamoto said so...

2. Number 1 is the only evidence.



Doesn't seem like a very tough decision to me. People will argue that what Miyamoto says goes because he is the God of the series but Aunouma is the one that deals with the timeline stuff, Miyamoto only deals with gameplay. He told us that himself and Aunouma has not made any suggestions that ALTTP is a distant sequel to LoZ/AoL nor did the retconned version change anything that would suggest such a thing.

In fact, if anything, the retconned version makes it clearer that it goes before LoZ/AoL. There is obvious connections between FSA and ALTTP. Connections that make it seem impossible for any game to go between FSA and ALTTP and since FS is a direct prequel to FSA, the timeline would have to look like this for those games.

TP-LoZ/AoL-FS/FSA-ALTTP

And that just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Agreed. So basically you're saying that the first five games go something like this?

OoT-- ALttP/LA-- LoZ/AoL

Is that right?

 

[Zemen]

Agreed. So basically you're saying that the first five games go something like this?

OoT-- ALttP/LA-- LoZ/AoL

Is that right?

Yes, that is what I believe the first 5 games look like in the timeline. Someone argued that FS/FSA could work after AoL because FSA has a seemingly new Ganondorf but with TP thrown into the mix it makes more sense Master Sword placement wise and Ganondorf dying at the end of TP wise which would lead to a new Ganondorf being born in FSA and then AoL being the last game in the series (on that side of the timeline) because Ganon was not revived.

 

[sign of table]

1998 is one of the very, very few times in Zelda history where we had an OFFICIAL timeline. Whether or not it made more sense than the alternatives, I don't really care; it was official. If you deny that it was the timeline of 1998, then I have trouble believing that you're actually looking for the developer intended timeline.

For instance, OoX/LA has MORE evidence (I don't plan on debating this, but counting everything it does. I'm just using it as an example. It DOES have more overall evidence, though) but does that mean that it's developer intended? Nope. That evidence could very easily mean absolutely NOTHING. LttP/LA, even though it has less evidence (it's still quite evidenced, but it's undeniable that if everything were to be equal and matter that it would have less than OoX/LA).

That said, I might as well point something out for the 1998 timeline. 1) It was the official timeline of Nintendo in 1998. 2) For OoT-LttP-LoZ we have a glaring flaw: Ganondorf in OoT is sealed with the Triforce of Power, while in LttP he is sealed with the full Triforce (which he could not have acquired after being sealed, as it is the only reason for his sealing). In LoZ we are given a story that he stole the ToP (and he still has it in LoZ). And BS LoZ even mentions the Seal War!

OoT-LttP-LoZ has that it says that Ganon was sealed between the SW, which we know that it used to be OoT, to LttP. However, this may have been retconned with BS LoZ's inclusion of the SW, and the intent may have already been retconned at the time (looking at GBA LttP manual which was released a few years after, but may have contained the same intent). Note: I am NOT saying that I believe for that to be true then, or now. All I believe is that the official timeline of 1998 was OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP, therefore it was.

 

[Pinecove]

Evidance for OoT-LoZ-ALttP:

Same title for Ganon.
Same state of the Triforce.
Allows for the "first generation Zelda"
Allows for the Miyamoto timeline to co-exist with OoT=Seal War
Changed Magic Shield to Hylian Shield in BS-LoZ
Changed Magic Sword to Master Sword in BS-LoZ
Changed the BS-LoZ backstory to be talking about the Seal War (which was stated to be OoT)
Changed the Seal War story to imply that Ganon only got the ToP and not the whole Triforce (as he did in OoT)
Sage/Town names

It seems clear to me that ALttP while connecting to OoT was never meant to DIRECTLY connect to it.

 

[sign of table]

Same title for Ganon.
Same state of the Triforce.
Allows for the "first generation Zelda"
Allows for the Miyamoto timeline to co-exist with OoT=Seal War
Changed Magic Shield to Hylian Shield in BS-LoZ
Changed Magic Sword to Master Sword in BS-LoZ
Changed the BS-LoZ backstory to be talking about the Seal War (which was stated to be OoT)
Changed the Seal War story to imply that Ganon only got the ToP and not the whole Triforce (as he did in OoT)
Sage/Town names

1. Meh I really don't see how titles are timeline changing.
2. LoZ/AoL-LttP is really, really murky Triforce-wise.
3. AoL BS made no sense in 1998 regardless.
4. Meh it was official, which is all that really mattered, imo.
5. I'm gonna quote Jarsh on this on a post he made on LA. As he sums it up better than I can

Yeah, I've looked around on the BS Zelda Legends website and that "Hylian Shield" and "Master Sword" are part of a fan-made patch called the "Triforce Tile Set patch" by Cons. In the original BS LoZ they are still very much known as the "Magic Sword" and "Magic Shield".

7. BS LoZ mentioning the SW isn't evidence for OoT-LoZ, as LttP mentions the SW too
8. Umm... what? Here's what BS LoZ says: "But, the first to open the entrance to the holy land and lay their hands
on the Triforce was the boss of a thief gang, Ganondorf." it doesn't specify ToP.
9. Sage/town names work for OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL

I really don't see how the BS LoZ account of the SW can really be important. I mean it came at the same time as OoT, but it still contradicts OoT really badly. I mean seriously...:

Everyone waited for the hero who would be able to handle the holy sword, the Master Sword. But as they waited for the hero, Ganon's evil power reached the royal palace where an grand battle unfolded. After the fight in which there were many sacrifices and the sages were successful in their seal, it came to be called the Seal War. Once again, Hyrule was visited by peace.

...what? That is completely different from OoT. Hell the BS LoZ version screws over Lex's argument that Ganon's attacking of the royal palace and the sealing happen at different times, as the BS LoZ version freaken specifies that the sealing happens after the battle where the knights died. No knights died at the end of OoT.

BS LoZ screws over OoT = SW more than it helps it.

 

[Pinecove]

1. Meh I really don't see how titles are timeline changing.

OoT=Daimou
LoZ=Daimaou
AlttP=Yami no maou.

You can't pretend you don't notice a pattern.

2. LoZ/AoL-LttP is really, really murky Triforce-wise.

a) Not as murky as OoT-ALttP-LoZ
b) We can either use S&D as Canon, introduce OoX, or theorize that the Triforce returned to the SR after AoL.

3. AoL BS made no sense in 1998 regardless.

First generation? Not in part? Seems to fit perfectly after OoT but not after ALttP because the TRIFORCE WAS WHOLE!

5. I'm gonna quote Jarsh on this on a post he made on LA. As he sums it up better than I can
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarsh
Yeah, I've looked around on the BS Zelda Legends website and that "Hylian Shield" and "Master Sword" are part of a fan-made patch called the "Triforce Tile Set patch" by Cons. In the original BS LoZ they are still very much known as the "Magic Sword" and "Magic Shield".

Yes that was a mistake of mine.

7. BS LoZ mentioning the SW isn't evidence for OoT-LoZ, as LttP mentions the SW too

Yes but the IMMIDIATE BS for LoZ is OoT. It refers to OoT as the SW and it being a DIRECT prequal to itself.

8. Umm... what? Here's what BS LoZ says: "But, the first to open the entrance to the holy land and lay their hands
on the Triforce was the boss of a thief gang, Ganondorf." it doesn't specify ToP.

But we know for a fact that he only got the ToP as Zelda scattered the ToW and the ToC is in a palace far far away.

9. Sage/town names work for OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL

Yes because thousands of years after events occur the people decide to celebrate ancient sages who they don't even remember the names of according to the AlttP BS.

That point is absoulte bull****. You're better then that.

 

[sign of table]

You can't pretend you don't notice a pattern.

Meh they don't seem to care who they call what. I mean Vaati was called the King of Darkness for a while...

a) Not as murky as OoT-ALttP-LoZ
b) We can either use S&D as Canon, introduce OoX, or theorize that the Triforce returned to the SR after AoL.

a) Link having the full Triforce to someone having the ToC, Zelda having the ToW, and the Royal Family having the ToP makes perfect sense, amirite?
b) With OoX it's fine, yes.

First generation? Not in part? Seems to fit perfectly after OoT but not after ALttP because the TRIFORCE WAS WHOLE!

Huh I guess I forgot about the king who had control of atleast part of the Triforce and Zelda's brother in OoT

Yes but the IMMIDIATE BS for LoZ is OoT. It refers to OoT as the SW and it being a DIRECT prequal to itself.

It does no such thing. It just mentions the SW, it doesn't say it happened immediatly prior to LoZ. Hell it's just the LttP SW cut and paste. That exact same train of thought can be used to say that LttPs SW backstory is evidence for it happening immediatly prior.

But we know for a fact that he only got the ToP as Zelda scattered the ToW and the ToC is in a palace far far away.

Only because of what OoT did. My response was when you said: "Changed the Seal War story to imply that Ganon only got the ToP and not the whole Triforce (as he did in OoT)" BS LoZ made no such implication at all, and it never implied that the SW was immediatly prior to it.

Yes because thousands of years after events occur the people decide to celebrate ancient sages who they don't even remember the names of according to the AlttP BS.

I'm sorry ahead of time for referencing a different debate, but I find your statement incredibly hypocritical.

How in hell can you EVER believe that OoT is still the SW if you go by that logic? The sage names for OoT-LttP-LoZ should work FINE in your eyes. Better than OoT as the SW since Hyrule wasn't destroyed by a flood and no knowledge of the old kingdom was left..............................

Seriously. Atleast old Hyrule and all of its traditions aren't erased by a wish upon the Triforce with OoT-LttP-LoZ.

Yeah sage names for OoT-LttP-LoZ don't work very nicely, but how can you ever possibly believe that people remembering the SW in LttP is even remotely logical after the old Hyrule was completely destroyed while believing that the names of a few towns that aren't given storyline significance can't work later in the timeline because a lot of time passed?

EDIT: Just to make it clear. I'm not saying that your point is invalid. OoT-LttP-LoZ sage names don't make as much sense. But I am completely apalled that you can accept that as important evidence, but believe OoT to be the SW when the land that you say that the SW refers to is completely destroyed and all of its traditions are forgotten.

 

[Pinecove]

Meh they don't seem to care who they call what. I mean Vaati was called the King of Darkness for a while...

Noooo....

You heard about the King of darkness and ASUMED it was Vaati.
My point is still Valid.

a) Link having the full Triforce to someone having the ToC, Zelda having the ToW, and the Royal Family having the ToP makes perfect sense, amirite?
b) With OoX it's fine, yes.

A) What? I'm sorry but I can't comprehend what you're trying to say.
Alright.

Huh I guess I forgot about the king who had control of atleast part of the Triforce and Zelda's brother in OoT

The royal family DID have control of the Triforce in OoT. It's not a big asumption to say that Link gave up the ToC after OoT.

It does no such thing. It just mentions the SW, it doesn't say it happened immediatly prior to LoZ. Hell it's just the LttP SW cut and paste. That exact same train of thought can be used to say that LttPs SW backstory is evidence for it happening immediatly prior.

WTF? I dare you to read it again. It clearly states that the BS to LoZ is the SW. You can't have the BS to LoZ be the SW if ALttP comes directly after OoT because otherwise BS LoZ would have no reason to talk about the SW in the first place!

Only because of what OoT did. My response was when you said: "Changed the Seal War story to imply that Ganon only got the ToP and not the whole Triforce (as he did in OoT)" BS LoZ made no such implication at all, and it never implied that the SW was immediatly prior to it.

Ah but Bs LoZ specifies OoT when it came out.

How in hell can you EVER believe that OoT is still the SW if you go by that logic? The sage names for OoT-LttP-LoZ should work FINE in your eyes. Better than OoT as the SW since Hyrule wasn't destroyed by a flood and no knowledge of the old kingdom was left..............................

Seriously. Atleast old Hyrule and all of its traditions aren't erased by a wish upon the Triforce with OoT-LttP-LoZ.

Yeah sage names for OoT-LttP-LoZ don't work very nicely, but how can you ever possibly believe that people remembering the SW in LttP is even remotely logical after the old Hyrule was completely destroyed while believing that the names of a few towns that aren't given storyline significance can't work later in the timeline because a lot of time passed?

EDIT: Just to make it clear. I'm not saying that your point is invalid. OoT-LttP-LoZ sage names don't make as much sense. But I am completely apalled that you can accept that as important evidence, but believe OoT to be the SW when the land that you say that the SW refers to is completely destroyed and all of its traditions are forgotten.

That's a COMPLETELY different debate. If you want to argue current intent I'd be more then happy to oblige but if we do that then stay with it. It's my understanding that we're debating the Miyamotto order which developers (besides Miyamotto) have said is fact. Just because in your eyes OoT-AlttP-LoZ might have worked better it was STILL confirmed by the developers including Dan Owsen who we know for a fact knew more timeline then Miamotto.

If you want to argue current intent now it's fine, but for the love of ****ing god, stop bringing up a topic that's already confirmed for the timeline when the interveiw came out.