FS Universe

Can the FS series fit in with the rest of Zelda?

If not, does it exist within its own timeline? A seperate dimension with a different and unrelated story, like Tenchi Muyo and Tenchi Universe.

What order do the FS games go in if you include the Minish Cap as one.

The only FS game in Britain currenty is FSGBA so I know nothing about FS storyline-wise. Please give me loads of information on FS.

Putting FS in a different continuity is like multi-timelines: they're a copout when things don't make sense. I could just as say that all Zelda games are in seperate universes, and you couldn't disprove it.

If FS/FSA is seperate from the series, then anything goes.

After many debates over the past few months, i'd have to agree with HoW on this as well.

If FS is it's own timeline, then why can't OoT have it's own, and LttP have it's own, and LoZ have it's own, and nothing fits together. it's just not right

And, that would put the Palace in LttP in the wrong context to begin with.

As for information regarding FS, i don't know much about FSA, but FS's story says that long ago, an evil wind mage, Vaati, stole some maidens, and a kid appeared with nothin but a sword. he went and sealed vaati within the Sword, and the maidens said that the sword split the kid in four parts. They built a shrine for the Four Sword, and the seal on Vaati began to weaken, that's where FS picks up.

Nobody knows if the backstory has anything to do with Minish Cap, but i assume that it is 'common knowledge' that FS goes before FSA.

To me, every single game in the series can be reasonably placed on a singular timeline, except the Four Swords games. Therefore, it makes sense to me that they exist in their own universe.

I choose to completely disregard the FS games. They only exist because Nintendo wanted to cash in on a multiplayer Zelda game. Sure, the other games were made to sell, but they were also made to be good games. FS itself is a cop-out. :soldier:

P.S. Oh yeah, and Multi-timelines is not a cop-out, either! Time travel exists, and therefore you may apply whatever timeline theory you want to the order of the games (so long as your theory makes sense).

After thinking over the whole "there could be a different universe for each game" thing, I figure that's another possible theory. In Japan there doesn't really need to be continuity in anything. Take for example Ultraman, how many different version of him are there now? And how many of those series actually have anything to do with eachother? Others include Transformers, and Gundam, series which share very little in common but the same name and a similar universe.

While I'm not trying to say that there is no correlation between the games I am saying that it's possible there is none, but that's no fun, so I'll keep on theorizing.

As for Four Swords, it's hard to say whether or not it fits in anywere, but since every other game fits in regardless of how or why Nintendo made the game this one should to. Until it has been officially taken off the timeline by Nintendo it's a part of the series and thus it is not exempt from exclusion in a timeline theory.

no... transformers series fit together. there are a few alternate universe stories, but not that many.. a single digit number that's for sure.

heh, sorry, simply shows how much I know about Transformers, but I believe the other two examples hold up.

I'm also disgusted at some of your ways of thinking.

FS itself is a cop out? Thanks Mikey, but no dice. FS is a Zelda game. FSA is a Zelda game. And FS DS will be a Zelda game. I fail to see how excluding these games from the series is any different from excluding TWW or the Oracle games.

Hell, I can say that the NES games wouldn't count either, because Nintendo didn't even have a storyline in ther minds at the time.

Personally, I think this timeline makes the most sense: OoT-MM-ALttP-LA

And that's it. The NES games were the first, TWW wasn't made by Miyamoto, the FS games are their own series, and Oracles weren't made by Nintendo. Tell me how I am NOT justified in stating this.

I think we need to make a distinction here between "multiple universes" and "parallel/split universes."

When we speak of a series as having "multiple universes," what this implies is that there are several, unrelated versions of the same world. From the storytelling perspective, you are creating multiple fantasy worlds which are similar, but are not connected together at all.

"Parallel/split universes" is something different. This concept implies that there are multiple versions of the same world, but they are CONNECTED somehow. With the split universe theory, it is postulated that at one time there was only one universe, but at some time it split into different versions because a single event happens differently in each universe.

Now, just because a series has split timelines does not imply that there's a copout here. The creators of Zelda have stated multiple times that the games are all connected together somehow. This means that "multiple unrelated universes" must be thrown out the window. Now, given the facts one could argue that there is only a single timeline. But one could argue just as well (or perhaps better) that there are split timelines. This is because Aonuma has implied it, and there is evidence in the games that imply it (OoT-TWW, FS making more sense in one timeline rather than another, etc.).

Originally posted by davogones@Sep 29 2004, 02:35 PM
I think we need to make a distinction here between "multiple universes" and "parallel/split universes."

When we speak of a series as having "multiple universes," what this implies is that there are several, unrelated versions of the same world. From the storytelling perspective, you are creating multiple fantasy worlds which are similar, but are not connected together at all.

"Parallel/split universes" is something different. This concept implies that there are multiple versions of the same world, but they are CONNECTED somehow. With the split universe theory, it is postulated that at one time there was only one universe, but at some time it split into different versions because a single event happens differently in each universe.

Now, just because a series has split timelines does not imply that there's a copout here. The creators of Zelda have stated multiple times that the games are all connected together somehow. This means that "multiple unrelated universes" must be thrown out the window. Now, given the facts one could argue that there is only a single timeline. But one could argue just as well (or perhaps better) that there are split timelines. This is because Aonuma has implied it, and there is evidence in the games that imply it (OoT-TWW, FS making more sense in one timeline rather than another, etc.).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Preach on brotha...preach on!!!

Originally posted by davogones
When we speak of a series as having "multiple universes," what this implies is that there are several, unrelated versions of the same world. From the storytelling perspective, you are creating multiple fantasy worlds which are similar, but are not connected together at all.

"Parallel/split universes" is something different. This concept implies that there are multiple versions of the same world, but they are CONNECTED somehow. With the split universe theory, it is postulated that at one time there was only one universe, but at some time it split into different versions because a single event happens differently in each universe.

I fail to see the difference. Going by that logic, I could say (most) Final Fantasy games are just parallel universes, created by decisions that greatly affected the outcome of the future. For example, FFX is what the world would be like if Squall did this in FFXIII, and etc.

I'm alright with the definitions behind split and multiple, but not parallel. I think multiple universe and parallel universe is the same. If something runs parallel to another person, place, or thing, then they never intersect or effect one another. In a split universe, something happens that spurns another universe, thus one effected or caused the other. Multiple Universes or parallel universes, may look similar, but they have nothing to do with the other--there is no intersection.

I fail to see the difference. Going by that logic, I could say (most) Final Fantasy games are just parallel universes, created by decisions that greatly affected the outcome of the future. For example, FFX is what the world would be like if Squall did this in FFXIII, and etc.

Bah, you're being stupid just to be stubborn. Final Fantasy creates a new world everytime they create a new game (with the exception of FFX2). There's a different history for each and every world, and a different geography -- including names of places. Hyrule is different. Each time a game starts it refers to Hyrule or other known places in the Zelda universe. Also, the only reason parallel timelines are considered in Zelda is the ambiguous nature of time travel, and the fact that time travel is used in the games. The only FF game with something close to time travel is FF8, but that's more like viewing the past through the eyes of someone who was in past.

FS itself is a cop out? Thanks Mikey, but no dice. FS is a Zelda game. FSA is a Zelda game. And FS DS will be a Zelda game. I fail to see how excluding these games from the series is any different from excluding TWW or the Oracle games.

The difference is a marketing ploy, an obvious gimmick to sell a popular franchise.

Originally posted by Moonman@Sep 29 2004, 08:04 PM
The difference is a marketing ploy, an obvious gimmick to sell a popular franchise.

You have to understand that every Zelda game that has ever come out was a marketing ploy, and since the first games became popular they have all been gimmicks to sell a popular franchise. You could argue just as well that OoT was a marketing ploy and a gimmick because it took the series from it's 2D overhead perspective into the realm of 3D. An argument to that would be that it was a new technology, but that could be easily shot down by the fact that the GameBoy connectivity is a new technology as well. Does that make sense to anybody else? I feel like I'm rambling...

Anyway, my point is, that if it has Nintendo's stamp of approval and it is a Zelda game, it's a Zelda game regardless of whether or not anybody thinks so, it's a part of the series and that can't be changed.

Kingdom Hearts was the only game which attempted to connect between the Final Fantasy series (VII, VIII, and X specfically)...it was very interesting to see Squall and Yuffie in one place, with a superficial explaination connecting them...but one would ask a lot of questions.

I have a feeling that the Minish Cap will connect something with something...lol...whether it's connecting the FS series with the main series, or connecting TWW with ALttP...or maybe even both connections. But until then, the FS series should be considered as a seperate series, since it's really hard to successfully connect without facing blocks and contradictions.

BTW I agree with Davo...there's a huge difference between multiple and parallel worlds...even the Zelda series shows the difference. Termina, for example, is considered a parallel universe. It's like a Hyrule version 2, yet it's totally unrelated to the events of the original Hyrule...but they're connected somehow through that cave in the tree. The old zelda.com stated that Termina was a result of a 'mistake' or a 'side-effect' made by the Goddessess. It's not official, but it's convincing.

I can't think of a multiple universe example in the Zelda series, although I do have one in Final Fantasy. 'Invalice' (SP?) is in Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, and the upcoming Final Fantasy XII...these are multiple versions of Invalice, not connected to each other at all.

What's the relationship between OoT Hyrule Past and Future? Multiple, Parallel, or something else?

Termina, for example, is considered a parallel universe. It's like a Hyrule version 2, yet it's totally unrelated to the events of the original Hyrule...but they're connected somehow through that cave in the tree. The old zelda.com stated that Termina was a result of a 'mistake' or a 'side-effect' made by the Goddessess. It's not official, but it's convincing.

If that's the case that would make Termina a split universe not parallel, what Davo said about parallel/split being the same is misleading. Parallels have nothing to do with one another--they don't intersect. If Termina were caused by the goddesses (not saying it's incorrect) that would mean that it had something to do with the dimension Hyrule is in...thus making it a split universe....

split: a line that is spurned from another line, both lines continue on, but are now parallel.

parallel: no split, and the lines never meet...they never had anything to do with the other

^ Well that should be common sense. I'm surprised people get that wrong though...

FS a gimmick? Perhaps. But I never played it. FSA on the other hand, maybe. But it was still fun. And at least it had more story to it than it's predessessor. Dark Link, people popping in out of a mirror world, Ganon and Ganondorf being two different people but the same person at the same time--That's far too interesting to simply dismiss as a different dimension. Also, if you pay close attention to the detail, FSA clearly refers [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] to ALttP so it's not that hard to say FSA takes places some around that time period.

Well, can someone suggest to me a way in which the FSS can take place in mainstream Zelda. I'm Switzerland ATM.

That's trying to prove a negative. That's like saying "Prove to me that the NES games are in the same universe as the rest of the series." Doesn't work that way. Considering Aonuma has commented on the FS games' placement in the timeline, regardless of how vague his comment was, and considering the only proof to exclude them is "for convenience's sake", then I don't see the justification in excluding FS/FSA from the rest of the series.

I'm going to copy what I said in that other thread...

Don't hurt me, but I think FSA is the IW. When you think about it, it seems like Capcom meant it like that. The IW says "back when Ganon was a man named Ganondorf" which he was in FSA, although we never saw him like that. When Ganon is *SPOILER?* sucked into the Four Sword at the end, maybe he was being sent to the Dark World. *SPOILER* And maybe the seven wise men were the seven maidens (again, don't kill me) explaining why the descandants of the sages are all human (sorry, Hylian.) Oh, and the obvious similarites of FSA and LttP's maps.

^ That would work if Ganon wasn't already known as much-feared demon from ancient times.

Don't hurt me, but I think FSA is the IW. When you think about it, it seems like Capcom meant it like that. The IW says "back when Ganon was a man named Ganondorf" which he was in FSA, although we never saw him like that. When Ganon is *SPOILER?* sucked into the Four Sword at the end, maybe he was being sent to the Dark World. *SPOILER* And maybe the seven wise men were the seven maidens (again, don't kill me) explaining why the descandants of the sages are all human (sorry, Hylian.) Oh, and the obvious similarites of FSA and LttP's maps.

As you said...Ganon is sucked into the Four Sword...which is NOT the Sacred Realm...it's just another place for imprisonment.

Not to mention...

-No Master Sword
-No Seven Sages
-Not Ganon's first appearance
-No Triforce
-No Sacred Realm
-Dark World exists
-Geography=nothing like OoT's

So, yes 12, I must hurt for you thinking that FSA is the IW.

*hurts* =P

*wonders what "Geography=nothing like OoT's" has to do with anything*

I'm in pain. :crying:

To me, every single game in the series can be reasonably placed on a singular timeline, except the Four Swords games. Therefore, it makes sense to me that they exist in their own universe.

Could you be more explicit, please?

All what we can do about the Imprisoning War is to speculate because there's no way to know if it's OoT or a separate event.

You have to understand that every Zelda game that has ever come out was a marketing ploy, and since the first games became popular they have all been gimmicks to sell a popular franchise.

You generalize too much. Yeah, they're trying to make a buck selling a game with every game, but every game is not a gimmick. If one takes your view, everything is a gimmick, and then the word gimmick becomes worthless.

Four Sword's storyline exists to adapt to the multiplayer gameplay mechanic. The gameboy one isn't really that bad, it's incredibly vague and doesn't mess with anything story-wise...because quite frankly at that point they were practically admitting that the game existed just for the multiplayer. It's really the FSA game where they mucked it all up by throwing in storyline elements shared with other games.

*steps off soapbox*

OK, so is Ganon a monster or warlock in FSA?

*wonders what "Geography=nothing like OoT's" has to do with anything*

I'm in pain. :crying:

The map of Hyrule in FSA looks nothing like the map of Hyrule in OoT.

OK, so is Ganon a monster or warlock in FSA?

Pig demon monster, or whatever you call it.

That proves it is post-OOT!