Placement of 2D Games

[BubbaSteamrolle]

disclaimer: I apologize if anyone has posted something similar to this before. If someone has, I would greatly appreciate it if I could get the link to read it.

Anyway, we all pretty much know the placement of the 3D Zelda games since the developers are usually very clear about these (though of course everything is still debatable and everyone's entitled to their opinions).
I'd like to discuss the placement of the 2D games however to try and get a better understanding of how they fit in. I will preface this by saying that I do believe that there is a timeline for all of the canon Zelda games, and so I'd prefer only comments that accept this as well.
I'd like to start by presenting my theory of the order, but I'm deliberately not going to state my explanation yet so that I can get honest and unbiased feedback on why or why not you agree.


MC--FS/FSA--LttP/OoX/LA


I'm purposely leaving out the 8-bit games because I believe they are in the Adult Timeline, while I believe that the above-mentioned games are in the Child Timeline, however if you believe differently, I'm more than willing to listen.

 

[Zemen]

Well first off, I put MC at the beginning of the timeline.

Any reason why you put the 8-bit games on the AT? You didn't really explain any of your placements.

A good reason why OoX shouldn't be a direct sequel to ALTTP is because Zelda has to introduce herself to Link. If it was a direct sequel then Zelda would already know Link and no introductions would be needed. Also, the BS of LA doesn't quite match up with OoX.

LA talks about how Link had set off on training after defeating Ganon and bringing peace back to Hyrule. Then he starts his adventure on his way back to Hyrule.

Problems with this and putting LA as a direct sequel to OoX are as follows.

1. Link defeated a half-assed version of Ganon in OoX, not the real deal.

2. In OoX, Link restored peace to Labrynna/Holodrum. Hyrule was in no danger and the BS of LA specifically says that Link brought peace back to Hyrule previously, that didn't happen in OoX.

3. OoX doesn't take place in Hyrule at all, thus the fact that the BS of LA mentions Link saving Hyrule doesn't match up with OoX if you put it directly before LA.

I personally put OoX after LA (but also after LoZ/AoL).

Also, we know for a fact that LoZ/AoL are on the same timeline as ALTTP. When the games first came out they were intended and confirmed to connect to each other. They pretty much have to be on the timeline but the order they go in is still debated a lot.

 

[Megamannt125]

OOX has to be one of the most confusing of all the games in it's placement, the most plausible one is sometime after ALTTP or after AoL, because the Triforce is whole in those games, so it'd make sense for Link to go check on them, thus starting the Oracle Games, the main problem with that is the following though:
After ALTTP - In OOX, Twinrova is trying to revive Ganon, who, to my knowledge didn't actually die in ALTTP, just made a quick escape to fight another day.

After AoL - This doesn't work out either, in AoL Link is on his 16th birthday, but in OOX, Link is a kid who can't be older than at least 12.

There is also the possibility of an all new Link, which may make sense of the whole thing, but that however doesn't make much sense, why would a brand new Link be guarding the triforce, is it some sort of duty that came down through his bloodline from a previous Link or something? And also if Link is JUST meeting Zelda in OOX, as Zemen said, then how did Link go about guarding the triforce without meeting Zelda at least once, or am I just reading the opening sequence wrong?

Now for some other issues:

LoZ/AoL on the AT - Sorry to say this, but ST completely abolished this idea with a brand new Hyrule, now some may wonder why I say this, well there is one simple answer, the Triforce, which is under the ocean, in a sealed away Hyrule (yes SEALED away forever, as the King's Wish), yet the Triforce is obviously in LoZ/AoL, which is why I think, any game on the AT, must not have anything to do with Old Hyrule or the Triforce, so it's safe to say there will probably be more Zelda games that are different like this.
I think the debate over OOX's placement should be the most debated timeline arguement in existense, yet there isn't that much of it.
When constructing a timeline, I think the best thing to do, is look at it from Miyamoto's perspective, he doesn't care about the timeline as much as we all do, he cares about each individual game, so there is always the possibility, that when placing OOX in the timeline, he didn't put much thought into it.

 

[BubbaSteamrolle]

Thank you for your input. Here is my reasoning for the oracle placement.

My actual belief is that the same Link is in LttP, OoX, and LA. And so LA would still work as a sequel to LttP, just with OoX in the middle. The most valid argument I ever hear against this placement is indeed the fact that Zelda has to introduce herself in the Oracle linked games. However my belief is that at the end of LttP, when Link made his wish on the triforce, he wished for Ganon's evil to be completely reversed. This resulted in many things, including characters like Flute Boy, the Loyal Sage, and Link's Uncle to even be brought back to life. I'll admit that this is an assumption on my part, but I also believe that his wish sent Hyrule back in time to before Agahnim had usurped the throne. This would have been the most complete way for Link to eliminate the evils from the land and to simultaneously prevent sending everyone into a frenzy (from the knowledge of their world turning to chaos, and suddenly turning back inexplicably). This clearly could have erased Zelda's memory of Link, except for a lingering feeling which she implies on their encounter in OoX.

Moving along, at the beginning of OoX, Link is seen rushing to the call of the Triforce because he now has a connection with it since he made a wish on it. He wouldn't have had to know the royal family directly, because the Essence of the Triforce transcends their authority.

And of course at the end of the linked Oracle game, Link is seen leaving on a raft, which one could easily assume he is doing to train, which would be where LA picks up.

As for the other arguments, I tend to give age arguments less merit since it's never officially stated what Link's age is in any of these games. However if we were to go by this, it's often stated that in LttP, Link is 10 or under. Megamannt, you said that in OoX he is likely 12, and in LA he is supposedly 16. If these games go in order as I think they do, then this would still work. We'd just have to assume that Link was off training for several years.

This is again just my theory which I have come to believe, and anyone can disagree.

As for the 8-bit games, I tried to keep them out of this because there is very little that connects them to the other Zelda games. In fact the only real piece of info we have on their placement is one of the original developer quotes that as Zemen stated was that they came after LttP. However this was before the developers had created many of the elements of the games, and it's been more recently argued that they do not necessarily have to come after LttP.

I personally keep the 8-bit games in the AT simply because of two main reasons. First being the names of the cities are also the names of some of the sages, and second the fact that only the Link from AoL (also from LoZ), and the Link from WW are required to go through completely separate trials to earn the triforce of courage, rather than having it automatically come to them.

I will admit that my placement is not set in stone however. I will say though, that I don't think ST is abolishing the notion that they could be in the AT. The Triforce is the representation of the power of the Gods. In essence it is omnipotent, and can likely go wherever it is needed. While the King did seal the old Hyrule away under the ocean, I don't agree that the Triforce was sealed along with it. At least not forever.

Thank you for your comments, and I look forward to more debate.

 

[Raven]

the 2d games placement is sketchy to say the least, i thin k we all know that the 3d game have more back story then the 2d's. this has resulted in a lot of confusion over the years and i believe that trying to figure out the placement of these 2d games along will be very difficult, it is easier to look at it as a whole but if you really want to concentrate on just the 2d's i would put them in this order.

LoZ/AoL--MC--AlttP/LA/OoX

LoZ and Aol Have the sketchiest back story in my opinion and they are the first games ever made so i put the at the beginning, then MC because it explains the garb of the hero, the first two games don't need this explanation because they are so early in hyrules history that a tunics and tights are plausible however the hat from MC explains a lot!
then Alttp as a whole new link but it still proceeds LoZ/AoL.
LA came after Alttp and i belive that in the time line it comes after that game althoughit could still be another link for this game. In Alttp and OoX link crosses paths with the triforce and in OoX link has the triforce on his hand.

it is hard to place these games by themselves so i dont really understand why your asking about the placement of just the 2d games but there you have it. a non biased opinion about the 2d time line.

???!!! why do ppl want to know things that have no connection to reality, because they do and they have another perspective of reality then we do.

 

[BubbaSteamrolle]

Thank you Raven. I'll let it be known that if someone from now on wants to include the 3D games, that's perfectly welcome. I just knew that there were already many other threads about people posting their own version of the complete timeline, and so I wanted to try focusing on one piece at a time (this is also why I initially left out the 8-bit games).

I'll try to make things more clear. I'd prefer it if the main things discussed in this thread are:
1. the placement of the Oracle games
2. whether or not all the 2D games are in the same timeline (this can include the 8-bit games, but it doesn't have to), and
3. whether or not the FS trilogy connects to the other 2D games, and if so, how it connects.

 

[sign of table]

A good reason why OoX shouldn't be a direct sequel to ALTTP is because Zelda has to introduce herself to Link. If it was a direct sequel then Zelda would already know Link and no introductions would be needed.

YAY MORE ARBITRARY DECLARATION OF WHAT QUOTES MEAN FROM ZEMEN!!

1. Link defeated a half-assed version of Ganon in OoX, not the real deal.

Define "real deal". That is 100% arbitrary and stupid.

I'll give an example using professional video gaming.

I defeated M2K (the best Meta Knight player in the world. MK is from Brawl, btw), but he was playing half-assed and worse than usual, thus I didn't beat the real deal.

Do you see the problem with that? Well, basically, it's 100% wrong. I beat M2K (well I really didn't... M2K is crazy good... but for this hypothetical situation... just go with it ). The person who played the Meta Knight that I defeated was the player M2K. Him playing worse or stupider than usual doesn't suddenly stop it from being M2K. It's still M2K regardless of how smart or good he was being at the time.

2. In OoX, Link restored peace to Labrynna/Holodrum. Hyrule was in no danger and the BS of LA specifically says that Link brought peace back to Hyrule previously, that didn't happen in OoX.

Zelda says that the hero was meant to appear when peace in Hyrule was disturbed. She never corrected herself, and the hero appeared, so at the time she was referring to, peace in Hyrule was clearly disturbed.

Zelda then says that peace can be restored to the hearts of the people. Yes, it does not specifically say Hyrule, but considering the ONLY thing that was threatening ANYTHING at the time was Ganon, peace was disturbed in Hyrule at the time, Link defeated Ganon, and peace returned to the hearts of the people, it's pretty damn clear that he brought peace back to Hyrule.

I mean if you want to ignore logic and continue with your completely fallacious and arbitrary reasoning... be my guest...

3. OoX doesn't take place in Hyrule at all, thus the fact that the BS of LA mentions Link saving Hyrule doesn't match up with OoX if you put it directly before LA.

So what? It doesn't say he was in Hyrule, it says he returned peace to Hyrule, which he did.

Your point is arbitrary, fallacious, illogical, and thus I can conclude that it is invalid.

I personally put OoX after LA (but also after LoZ/AoL).

I put LA after LttP, too.

But that doesn't mean I can ignore all logic and say that OoX/LA is impossible or illogical when it clearly isn't. It just means I believe that LttP/LA is more possible and logical.

Also, we know for a fact that LoZ/AoL are on the same timeline as ALTTP. When the games first came out they were intended and confirmed to connect to each other. They pretty much have to be on the timeline but the order they go in is still debated a lot.

1) You don't care about intent at all. 2) Original intent =/= current intent (whether or not the SW is OoT, the intent surrounding the SW has changed... no matter what you believe. Or FSA being the SW (because it clearly isn't anymore)).

Nothing from right now implies that LoZ/AoL is on the same, or on a different, timeline from LttP.

Original intention, especially when you yourself have explicitly expressed that you don't give a damn about intent, from 1991 is unimportant to a 2009 timeline when the series has nearly quintupled in size and the story has been screwed to high heaven.

Arguing for LttP-LoZ is fine, having your entire argument of a current timeline based upon a 1991 box that has been said outright from Nintendo to be WRONG, however, is ridiculous.

Sorry to say this, but ST completely abolished this idea with a brand new Hyrule, now some may wonder why I say this, well there is one simple answer, the Triforce, which is under the ocean, in a sealed away Hyrule (yes SEALED away forever, as the King's Wish), yet the Triforce is obviously in LoZ/AoL, which is why I think, any game on the AT, must not have anything to do with Old Hyrule or the Triforce, so it's safe to say there will probably be more Zelda games that are different like this.

While I would agree that at this current time it is implied that there is no Triforce in Hyrule because of the change in the emblem, I do NOT agree with the Triforce being stuck in Hyrule.

The Triforce is seen rising towards the surface and flying away after Daphnes' wish.

Now I'd agree with you if you said it was evidence against TWW-LttP as the MS is stuck in an erased Hyrule, I'd say it's completely wrong to say that the Triforce is stuck there, as it flys away after the wish and has no reason to be stuck in Hyrule.

And just to nitpick, Japanese text doesn't say sealed away, it's far less vague. Daphnes actually says in his wish to "erase" Hyrule.

Far less vague.

 

[Megamannt125]

Very good point Sign of Justice, I never thought about it that way, but there is also the fact of Ganondorf, he was under Hyrule, did that mean he was erased with Hyrule or what? Then there is also Ganon, his pig form, there is a clear difference between beast Ganon, and pig Ganon. Ganondorf turns into beast Ganon using the power of his Triforce of Power, and turns into Pig Ganon using the Trident of Power, in LoZ he is clearly Pig Ganon, but then how did he get the Trident of Power? (I'd also like to note, that in the remake of LoZ, BS Zelda, he has the Trident of Power) There is also the possibility that the Triforce of Power can indeed turn him into both types of Ganon.
Then there is another issue: Geography, i'm not usually the type to use Hyrule's Geography for an arguement, but Hyrule's Georgraphy in Spirit Tracks is unknown at this time, all we have is a quater of the map, but then again, the only Geography of the LoZ Map that resembles old Hyrule is Death Mountain and Spectacle Rock.
I apologize to the poster of this topic for dragging on the LoZ/AoL arguement when it clearly isn't the main focus of the topic.

 

[Zemen]

YAY MORE ARBITRARY DECLARATION OF WHAT QUOTES MEAN FROM ZEMEN!!

It's obvious what the quote means. I don't introduce myself to people I already know when I see them. I don't hang out with my friends and open up a conversation by saying "I'm Zach." They already know that. It's obvious they have not previously met, thus a direct sequel should be out of the question.

Define "real deal". That is 100% arbitrary and stupid.

In the movies, when someone dies and comes back to life as a Zombie, people who may have known that person previously always say "that's not -enter name- anymore, it's a God damned Zombie."

Ganon was more or less a Zombie of his real form. He was brutal and at his most basic instincts (just like Zombies) and was not interested in anything other than killing and destroying (which is basically what Zombies do). He was not the real Ganon. The real Ganon is smart and strong. This DG (dumb Ganon) was nothing like the real Ganon. Twinrova even mention them not being able to finish the ritual. He wasn't all there. You know it, I know it, everyone who has played OoX knows it. You're disagreeing for no reason.

Zelda says that the hero was meant to appear when peace in Hyrule was disturbed. She never corrected herself, and the hero appeared, so at the time she was referring to, peace in Hyrule was clearly disturbed.

First of all, peace being disturbed and peace crumbling are 2 completely different things.

USA is at war right now and our peace has been disturbed, but it surely hasn't crumbled. When I think of crumbling peace I think of people rioting and going nuts out of fear and everyone just being afraid all the time. That stuff wasn't even happening in the 2 lands that were in danger. I would agree all day that Hyrule's peace may have been disturbed, but crumbled peace, IMO, literally sounds like there is no peace whatsoever. How can that be when they aren't even in danger yet?

She could have been referring to past legends seeing as how Link has always been the one to save Hyrule and Link always has the crest. It could just be a legend that when someone with that crest appears then peace in Hyrule has crumbled. Think of it this way. In OoX Link is how old? Lets just say he's 15 or so. For 15 years he probably had that crest on his hand. I'm pretty sure the game called it a birthmark or mark or something. Anyway, nothing in the game says that he didn't previously have the mark. Does this mean that peace in Hyrule has crumbled ever since Link's birth? Chances are it's just a legend that she made sound like fact.

Zelda then says that peace can be restored to the hearts of the people. Yes, it does not specifically say Hyrule, but considering the ONLY thing that was threatening ANYTHING at the time was Ganon, peace was disturbed in Hyrule at the time, Link defeated Ganon, and peace returned to the hearts of the people, it's pretty damn clear that he brought peace back to Hyrule.

Except NOTHING happened in Hyrule. If there was an Earthquake in Labrynna/Holodrum would you say Hyrule is in danger of that same Earthquake? Ganon and his minions ONLY attacked Labrynna/Holodrum. Not to mention that Ganon was only alive long enough to get his but whooped by Link. There were no bad guys in Hyrule. There was no devastation in Hyrule. There was no threat to Hyrule. Believing that Hyrule must have lost peace is just your way of twisting words to fit your timeline which is something you always accuse me of but I have given you perfectly good explanations as to why Hyrule was in no danger. At the end of the game Zelda says that Link restored peace. She does not say he restored peace to Hyrule. Since the games take place in Labrynna and Holodrum it's clear that she was referring to those 2 places when she said that.

I mean if you want to ignore logic and continue with your completely fallacious and arbitrary reasoning... be my guest... So what? It doesn't say he was in Hyrule, it says he returned peace to Hyrule, which he did.

When LA came out, the only games that were created all took place in Hyrule. Obvious intent (which you love so much) puts LA after a game that takes place in Hyrule in which Ganon had previously been wreaking havoc upon (ALTTP ringing any bells for you?). I'm not ignoring logic, at all. In fact, it seems like you're the one ignoring logic.

Your point is arbitrary, fallacious, illogical, and thus I can conclude that it is invalid. I put LA after LttP, too.

Ok... then what are you fighting about? I have LA as a direct sequel to ALTTP and you just said you put LA after ALTTP too so why are you trying to flame me (which you are) when you agree with me? Seems ******** to me.

But that doesn't mean I can ignore all logic and say that OoX/LA is impossible or illogical when it clearly isn't.

I never said it was impossible. I said it doesn't make sense. It's definitely illogical. You just like playing Devil's Advocate far too much to see that.

It just means I believe that LttP/LA is more possible and logical.

Ok then stop arguing with me when you agree with me. All that does is keeps us stuck on the same subject when we could be moving on. Who cares if we agree for different reasons? If we agree just move on.

1) You don't care about intent at all.

But you do and obvious intent for LA is to be a direct sequel to ALTTP. Just because I don't pay so much attention intent doesn't mean that you can disregard it when you're arguing me, especially when you do look for intent.

2) Original intent =/= current intent (whether or not the SW is OoT, the intent surrounding the SW has changed... no matter what you believe. Or FSA being the SW (because it clearly isn't anymore)).

As far as I'm concerned, the original intent hasn't changed at all. If OoX was made to be a prequel to LA then the game would have taken place in Hyrule or at least some part of the game where Hyrule was in danger would have been added. OoX has nothing to do with Hyrule so trying to argue that Hyrule was in danger is awful.

Nothing from right now implies that LoZ/AoL is on the same, or on a different, timeline from LttP.

The only knowledge we've ever had of the 2 games was the Miyamoto Order which put them on the same timeline and had them directly connected (but not as direct sequel/prequel).

There hasn't been anything since then to change the idea of them being on the same timeline so why put them on different timelines when nothing contradicts the original intent of having them on the same timeline?

Original intention, especially when you yourself have explicitly expressed that you don't give a damn about intent, from 1991 is unimportant to a 2009 timeline when the series has nearly quintupled in size and the story has been screwed to high heaven.

So what if I don't look for intent? You do so I get to argue it all I want. Original intent for ALTTP on the same timeline as LoZ/AoL has never been contradicted so moving them from the same timeline is useless.

And just to nitpick, Japanese text doesn't say sealed away, it's far less vague. Daphnes actually says in his wish to "erase" Hyrule.

Which is one of the reasons I used to believe that no games go on the AT but ST could change that for me.

 

[Hayzer]

There are several theories that I think are deemed reasonable in certain cases.

1: (After TP): LoZ/AoL--OoX--MC--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA

2: ("): MC--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoX

3: (" with MC before OoT): FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoX

4: (" "): LoZ/AoL--OoX--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA

5-8: The above theories all placed after ST on the AT

All of them can be made to fit, but they all depend on answering the following questions:

1. Do I believe the Miyamoto Order or the Original Order?

2. Do I consider the Seal War a separate event or another game (such as OoT or FSA)?

I personally think I believe theory 1 or 2. I can go both ways, but it's hard to make a final decision.

SoJ brings up good points that Zemen counters, but those counters can be recountered and those re-recountered, as I've seen in many...trust me...many threads.

In the movies, when someone dies and comes back to life as a Zombie, people who may have known that person previously always say "that's not -enter name- anymore, it's a God damned Zombie."

Ganon was more or less a Zombie of his real form. He was brutal and at his most basic instincts (just like Zombies) and was not interested in anything other than killing and destroying (which is basically what Zombies do). He was not the real Ganon. The real Ganon is smart and strong. This DG (dumb Ganon) was nothing like the real Ganon. Twinrova even mention them not being able to finish the ritual. He wasn't all there. You know it, I know it, everyone who has played OoX knows it. You're disagreeing for no reason.

I think I'd have to agree with you, although it's a moot argument that doesn't really apply that much to the timeline anyway. I can understand it as evidence to back up evidence, but I think the basis of the argument is much better.

What does the Japanese say SoJ? Is it disturbed peace, or crumbled peace?

Except NOTHING happened in Hyrule. If there was an Earthquake in Labrynna/Holodrum would you say Hyrule is in danger of that same Earthquake? Ganon and his minions ONLY attacked Labrynna/Holodrum. Not to mention that Ganon was only alive long enough to get his but whooped by Link. There were no bad guys in Hyrule. There was no devastation in Hyrule. There was no threat to Hyrule. Believing that Hyrule must have lost peace is just your way of twisting words to fit your timeline which is something you always accuse me of but I have given you perfectly good explanations as to why Hyrule was in no danger. At the end of the game Zelda says that Link restored peace. She does not say he restored peace to Hyrule. Since the games take place in Labrynna and Holodrum it's clear that she was referring to those 2 places when she said that.

True, but I'd like to bring up the point that if Ganon had killed Link, he would have gone onto Hyrule and attacked it too. It was saved relatively.

And...I must go.

 

[Zemen]

True, but I'd like to bring up the point that if Ganon had killed Link, he would have gone onto Hyrule and attacked it too. It was saved relatively.

And...I must go.

But did Link die? No. If Link HAD died then yes, peace in Hyrule would have crumbled and Ganon would have made his way over there eventually, but none of that happened so that's a moot argument.

If I said "what if Link died in OoT? Then MM never would have happened and Termina would have been destroyed by Majora who probably would have taken over that world/dimension and then moved onto a different world dimension to take over Hyrule and other places." You would say "Yeah...but Link didn't die, so what's your point?"

It's the same situation and the argument isn't strong at all.

I don't care about what if's because those what if's didn't happen. Let's focus on what ACTUALLY happens in the games.

 

[sign of table]

t's obvious what the quote means. I don't introduce myself to people I already know when I see them. I don't hang out with my friends and open up a conversation by saying "I'm Zach." They already know that. It's obvious they have not previously met, thus a direct sequel should be out of the question.

Yeah you're right about that. I agree that LttP/OoX/LA (or OoX being a direct sequel to anything, really) is pretty illogical.

In the movies, when someone dies and comes back to life as a Zombie, people who may have known that person previously always say "that's not -enter name- anymore, it's a God damned Zombie."

Is OoX Ganon a zombie? No, he's just Ganon without intelligence.

If someone (I'll say someone named Max) were to get into an accident and suffer severe brain damage to the point where is pretty much a vegetable, would that personally suddenly no longer be Max?

Ganon was more or less a Zombie of his real form.

No. He was a Ganon without intelligence. As you said, people would say "that's not so-and-so anymore, it's a god damn zombie". Well did Zelda say that? NO. Zelda called him a Ganon without intelligence. He's still Ganon, but more comparable to someone who gets brain damage and is on the brink of retardation.

He was brutal and at his most basic instincts (just like Zombies)

What did the old Ganon want to do? The only time we've ever heard the plot that Ganon wants, it said he wanted to turn the world into a "Makai of evil", IIRC.

All Ganon wants to do is kill all, anyway.

He was not the real Ganon. The real Ganon is smart and strong. This DG (dumb Ganon) was nothing like the real Ganon.

LOLNOTRUESCOTTSMANFALLACY

If he wasn't Ganon then why do they call him Ganon?

If someone gets into a severe car accident and suffers brain damage and is essentially a ******, they're still the same person.

When I think of crumbling peace I think of people rioting and going nuts out of fear and everyone just being afraid all the time. That stuff wasn't even happening in the 2 lands that were in danger. I would agree all day that Hyrule's peace may have been disturbed, but crumbled peace, IMO, literally sounds like there is no peace whatsoever. How can that be when they aren't even in danger yet?

Doesn't matter how it is, it is.

Say that developer quotes are wrong all you want, but you'd be a moron to just outright claim that the in-game quote is wrong based upon your arbitrary interpretation of it.

Except NOTHING happened in Hyrule. If there was an Earthquake in Labrynna/Holodrum would you say Hyrule is in danger of that same Earthquake? Ganon and his minions ONLY attacked Labrynna/Holodrum. Not to mention that Ganon was only alive long enough to get his but whooped by Link. There were no bad guys in Hyrule. There was no devastation in Hyrule. There was no threat to Hyrule. Believing that Hyrule must have lost peace is just your way of twisting words to fit your timeline which is something you always accuse me of but I have given you perfectly good explanations as to why Hyrule was in no danger. At the end of the game Zelda says that Link restored peace. She does not say he restored peace to Hyrule. Since the games take place in Labrynna and Holodrum it's clear that she was referring to those 2 places when she said that.

Quote that says that ONLY things happened in Hyrule.

Hint, you won't find one, you'll only find quotes to the contrary.

Zelda says peace in Hyrule has crumbled. You are IGNORING quotes to say otherwise.

The GAME ITSELF says that peace in Hyrule has crumbled.

YOU are saying that the quote is wrong.

We aren't going to get anywhere in any debate if you flat out say that the in-game quotes are wrong.

How ridiculous is that? Your arbitrary interpretation is clearly wrong, as the GAME ITSELF says that peace crumbled in Hyrule.

I believe that both OoX/LA and LttP/LA are very valid and logical timeline placements. However something LOZH on ZI said made me think that the stuff for OoX/LA may not matter for a Nintendo developer intended timeline.

When LA came out, the only games that were created all took place in Hyrule. Obvious intent (which you love so much) puts LA after a game that takes place in Hyrule in which Ganon had previously been wreaking havoc upon (ALTTP ringing any bells for you?). I'm not ignoring logic, at all. In fact, it seems like you're the one ignoring logic.

Original intent =/= recent intent

When OoT came out it was the SW and the intended timeline was OoT-LoZ-LttP.

The latter is no longer the case (it can still go LoZ-LttP, but it can't quite go OoT-LoZ-LttP without stuff going between it. So the intent is different). And we both agree that the former is wrong.

Intent can change.

Ok... then what are you fighting about? I have LA as a direct sequel to ALTTP and you just said you put LA after ALTTP too so why are you trying to flame me (which you are) when you agree with me? Seems ******** to me.

I'm not trying to flame you. I think your point is wrong, so I will say that I think your point is wrong.

You say something, I think what you said is wrong, so I point it out. I don't disagree with your placement, I disagree with the reasoning behind your placement.

I never said it was impossible. I said it doesn't make sense. It's definitely illogical. You just like playing Devil's Advocate far too much to see that.

You think that the quote in-game is illogical, thus you say that the QUOTE IS WRONG.

Ok then stop arguing with me when you agree with me. All that does is keeps us stuck on the same subject when we could be moving on. Who cares if we agree for different reasons? If we agree just move on.

I care that we believe the same thing for different reasons.

By your logic I could say "we all believe there is a timeline, so why do we argue the reasoning behind how the timeline goes?"

Because we believe different things. This part of this forum is about timeline related debate.

This is related to the reasoning of the timeline (and of course the timeline itself), so if you believe something different than me, I will debate it.

But you do and obvious intent for LA is to be a direct sequel to ALTTP. Just because I don't pay so much attention intent doesn't mean that you can disregard it when you're arguing me, especially when you do look for intent.

Of course. You are trying to convince me based on what I think matters.

I am trying to convince YOU that YOUR argument should be wrong using YOUR logic.

Using my beliefs about intent, I'd say that LttP/LA is still intended, and Capcom just likes to make random unimportant references to stuff.

However I think that your reasons for believing in LttP/LA and think that using your logic, OoX/LA would be a more fitting timeline placement for you.

The only knowledge we've ever had of the 2 games was the Miyamoto Order which put them on the same timeline and had them directly connected (but not as direct sequel/prequel).

There hasn't been anything since then to change the idea of them being on the same timeline so why put them on different timelines when nothing contradicts the original intent of having them on the same timeline?

There weren't two timelines at the time of those quotes, though, lol.

And things HAVE contradicted those quotes since then.

Miyamoto order contradicted the box, and games going directly after TP has contradicted the Miyamoto order.

Since all previous confirmations have been made impossible at one time, there is no current confirmation of where LoZ and LttP take place.

So what if I don't look for intent? You do so I get to argue it all I want. Original intent for ALTTP on the same timeline as LoZ/AoL has never been contradicted so moving them from the same timeline is useless.

The option for them to be on a different timeline was NEVER THERE when they were confirmed to be on the same timeline, though.

Which is one of the reasons I used to believe that no games go on the AT but ST could change that for me.

The way ST is looking now, River Zora's timeline is looking really good, imo. Now it all could easily change, but if ST is looking like I think it looks like now (which could EXTREMELY easily change when I actually get the game. So anything I say about it now is practically pointless ), then
----TWW/PH-ST-TMC-FS/FSA-LoZ/AoL(-OoX)
OoT
----MM-TP-LttP/LA(-OoX)
is probably one of the most consistent timelines. And fixes more holes than any other timeline, imo.

 

[Smertios]

----TWW/PH-ST-TMC-FS/FSA-LoZ/AoL(-OoX)
OoT
----MM-TP-LttP/LA(-OoX)

That's definitely the best non-AT LttP theory I have seen so far. Still, I find it hard to ignore everything linking LttP to FSA. And there is the problem of Ganon in that theory. How does he come back for LttP after being killed in TP??

 

[Zemen]

That's definitely the best non-AT LttP theory I have seen so far. Still, I find it hard to ignore everything linking LttP to FSA. And there is the problem of Ganon in that theory. How does he come back for LttP after being killed in TP??

Well, like you said, ignoring the connections between FSA and ALTTP is hard. I personally would have put FS/FSA in front of ALTTP and I believe that FSA introduces a new Ganondorf which would explain his existence in ALTTP since the original Ganondorf died in TP.

 

[Pinecove]

^Technically they could be considered of no relevance since Miyamotto upended the tea-table.