63 replies to this topic

[Impossible]

This is somewhat of an in-between topic with us having nothing to discuss, but when a topic gets made on a specific subject that is actually a major timeline decision/debate (instead of an overly generic or overly specific topic getting derailed into the same argument over and over), some good discussion actually tends to come out of it (and I'd say there's a pretty good standard here). I mean, that TMC topic I made was probably the best discussion I've ever seen on the subject, and I thought it would be about time to try that with something else - anything that hasn't been properly debated and explored recently is a good subject, and this is the first thing that came to mind (anyone have any other ideas?).

I just randomly picked OoX, since they aren't discussed much (and it's at least simpler than all the various debates that factor into TMC's placement). They may not have much of a bearing on the overall timeline, but I still like discussing them as a standalone debate. It's nice not to be worrying constantly about which timeline games are on when you really want to discuss the evidence in a game itself, not have it degenerate into TWW/TP arguments. Really, what's more important is the position of OoS and OoA relative to the other games that were out of the time, and I've tried to cover more possibilities than actually merit serious consideration (IMO) in the poll, just so we can discuss what does and doesn't work. Also added one for the two most popular placements, because I'm really interested in particular in seeing what case can be made for each side of that argument. I'll give my thoughts on this later, and just open the discussion for any opinions or theories relating to the Oracles as a whole that people want to discuss.

And hey, this means we get to actually talk about our timelines, and not just what effect a translation has on a particular theory/placement.

[Raien]

I say after LoZ/AoL because the Triforce is shown in three separate pieces.

[KJ Contrarian]

Good topic choice, Impossible!

I chose Oracles placement to be after Alttp – At least that is what I have in the timeline I am currently considering.

Oracles Link cannot be AoL Link. The OoS manual specifically describes Link as a “boy”, which disqualifies him as being AoL Link, who was an “Adult” according to Miyamoto.

Oracles Link also cannot be Alttp Link. When Oracles Zelda meets Link during the linked game, her dialogue indicates she has never met him. When she says “I knew it at first glance”, she is alluding to the fact that while not yet having met him, she knows OF him, “reputationally” speaking, because of his heroic actions during the first of the two Oracles games that you play.

My own perspective is that it’s really a choice between two arguments - Those that favor after AoL can say it was initial developer intent (Which changed early on in development), plus the fact that Oracles & AoL Link share a similarity regarding the “Triforce mark” they have. Those that favor after Alttp can say the presence of the Trident with Oracles Ganon, which LoZ Ganon, at least in-game, is not shown as using. My current timeline is very Trident-dependent in its logic, so I go with after Alttp.

[MikePetersSucks]

I say after LoZ/AoL because the Triforce is shown in three separate pieces.

[Erimgard]

I say after LoZ/AoL because the Triforce is shown in three separate pieces.

That.

Along with a few other connections to the NES games.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

No idea, but I would always place Oracles of Ages before Oracles of Seasons. Doing it the other way kind of weakens the internal logic of the two games.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 08 April 2009 - 02:31 PM.

[Fin]

Despite what my sig says, I believe the very end of the timeline to be the most likely canonical placement, mainly because I heard the Oracle games were originally planned as a trilogy that retold and added to the first two games. I imagine the third chapter would have been pretty much the same as the linked story that we ended up with.

Edited by Fintin O'Brien, 08 April 2009 - 02:46 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

I say after LoZ/AoL because the Triforce is shown in three separate pieces.

That.

Along with a few other connections to the NES games.

Do elaborate, please.

[Showsni]

They're actually a pretty important part of my theory; I use them as OoT's backstory. (In a way).

With Zelda not recognising Link, a new Link is called for. You want to put them sometime after at least one Ganon has died (so he can be resurrected) and after the triforce has been reunited (as it starts off whole in Hyrule Castle). Then the only real places are after ALttP, AoL or TWW. We can rule out TWW due to fact Hyrule stull exists. My timeline calls for the Sleeping Zelda story to happen as soon as possible (one generation or so) after ALttP to account for why Zelda's called Zelda (named after ALttP Zelda), which doesn't allow enough time for the Master Sword to be lost; so I go for after AoL.

Now, why the link to OoT? At the time of Oracles, the triforce seems to be just sitting in Hyrule Castle. A random stranger can walk in and touch it; it doesn't seem like it's being used, and it's not very well guarded (from what we see). The world has presumably enjoyed a period of peace since AoL, but now the greatest disaster in living memory has only just been narrowly averted; princess Zelda was captured, and Ganon nearly reborn. (Here be fanfiction!) I posit that the elders of Hyrule realised the triforce wasn't safe, and decided to act. Using the SR portal near to Hyrule Castle (originally created by Agahnim, way back when) they built the Temple of Light to house the triforce, and the Temple of Time to guard the entrance. The Master Sword was, you will recall, recently recovered by Link; they used this as the final lock on the SR portal, and created the Ocarina of Time and the three Spiritual Stones at this time.

[Impossible]

Oracles Link cannot be AoL Link. The OoS manual specifically describes Link as a “boy”, which disqualifies him as being AoL Link, who was an “Adult” according to Miyamoto.

That doesn't disqualify them being after AoL, though. Nobody's saying it's the same Link. But there are clear connections between the stories.

- The Oracles were originally developed as a remake and sequel to the NES games, continuing the story
- The story concept of Ganon's minions attempting to revive him is identical
- The Triforce is in three pieces, as it was depicted in AoL but not in ALttP (honestly, I see this as a visual detail and never really cared about it, but okay)
- Link has a Triforce mark without having a piece of the Triforce (discussed below)

Now, there are a few important questions raised by Link's Triforce mark. Firstly, the only explanation given in the series for its appearance is the king's spell, which would make it appear on the hand of someone worthy of the Triforce. So we can potentially assume that AoL's BS has already happened. However, the Triforce is still whole in OoX. This makes ALttP/LA-OoS/OoA-AoL BS-LoZ/AoL necessary if you want a post-ALttP/LA placement, yet that places the AoL BS after OoX, contradicting what I said before and giving us nothing to explain the mark. It may be a minor detail, but when we're discussing a "small" debate like the Oracles, why not go for perfect consistency?

Secondly, Impa says that the Triforce mark is the sign of a "fated hero". This is inconsistent. If this knowledge is gained from Hylian history, it would have to come from games like OoT and TP (or TWW, depending on your timeline, but LOL at the thought of Hylian history actually existing then). Yet none of those games would prompt the Triforce mark to be recognised as the mark of a hero. In fact, between OoT and TP, and presumably after TP as well for a while, it would have only been seen by anyone on the line of Hylian princesses, not heroes. At other times (TP's BS), it was distinctly noticeable on the hand of Ganondorf - not exactly a hero! Link's mark is rarely noticed and would not be identified as a mark of a hero. It's known as the mark of someone chosen by the gods, or someone with a part of the Triforce. So what game could explain Impa's observation? Well, AoL, of course! AoL's Link had the mark appear on his hand one day at random, and this was much more related to him being a hero, and his heroic quests in LoZ and AoL.

This also makes up for the fact that my "AoL's BS must have happened" argument doesn't work as well with less traditional timelines. I mean, even ignoring the fact that the Triforce is whole in OoX and hence for it to be after AoL's BS (as I purported is the most logical) requires it to be after AoL, it's clearly irrational for OoX to be between AoL's BS and LoZ. Because we know Impa's reaction to the Triforce mark after AoL's BS. If she doesn't tell Link about the sleeping Zelda upon seeing that mark, or ever get around to that being the whole point of it, then surely, Zelda's not still sleeping.

Trying to order the Oracle games with respect to each other pisses me off. OoA first clearly has better internal plot consistency (it makes Link's actions at the start logical since he hasn't met Impa, it resolves the Ambi subplot, it gives more consistency to Bipin's family), but OoS first seems to have more external consistency (the numbers on the cartridges, the usual way the games are written when talking about both, even officially, and the day/sunset's possible symbolism in the intros). I think maybe they change their mind at some point while making the games. Maybe some of the things suggesting OoS being first were carried over from early days of development... the Seed of Power game or whatever it was called was originally going to be the first one, right?

Edited by Impossible, 08 April 2009 - 06:39 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

the only explanation given in the series for its appearance is the king's spell, which would make it appear on the hand of someone worthy of the Triforce. So we can potentially assume that AoL's BS has already happened.

Secondly, Impa says that the Triforce mark is the sign of a "fated hero". This is inconsistent.

That's not an inconsistency, it's the answer: the mark appears for a different reason than that in AoL, just as the mark in OoT appeared for yet another reason. Nintendo can make up as many Triforce marks and reasons for them as they like.

Trying to order the Oracle games with respect to each other pisses me off.

Yeah, it's bothersome. I place OoS first because I prefer getting the Master Sword from a mysterious green robed old man than from King Zora, but if not for that, I'd go for OoA.

[Impossible]

That's not an inconsistency, it's the answer: the mark appears for a different reason than that in AoL, just as the mark in OoT appeared for yet another reason. Nintendo can make up as many Triforce marks and reasons for them as they like.

I'm saying that there IS no other reason ever given in the series. Nor is there any reason for it to be recognised as the symbol of a hero. Impa can't distinguish between different reasons Triforce marks may have appeared, she just knows that according to Hylian legend/history, that's what it means. AoL is the only explanation for this, making it simply better than having to make one up from scratch.

[Duke Serkol]

Look, most people assume that the Triforce never left the Sacred Realm before OoT, right? So how do characters in the game know that Triforce marks would appear on the hands of the Triforce bearers? Simply because of some legend/prophecy.
It doesn't need to have happened in a previous game, and I doubt the writers meant anything beyond what was said in the game. Can't expect the majority of players to know/remember/think back of why the crest appeared in AoL.

[Impossible]

Nevertheless, it's better to go for some kind of consistency between games than to assume the legend magically changed and the purpose of the mark changed for no reason. And I'd say the games have enough references to AoL to potentially make people think of it...

[Duke Serkol]

Uh? Which references? I know there's lots to LoZ, but AoL? What about it besides the plot to resurrect Ganon and maybe, maybe the shape of the lands? (The latter took us years to realize so I wouldn't count it for this).

[Impossible]

The Triforce mark in itself is a reference to AoL, as is the whole concept of the plot.

My point isn't that it's an absolute definitive necessity, just that it makes more sense and speculates less. It's the best and only explanation we have as to why the Triforce mark has the meaning it does - AoL Link gave it that meaning. In a situation like this, where no other aspect of the timeline is dependent on how we place the Oracles (unlike the much more multi-faceted ALttP or TMC arguments), why not go for the smoothest option? What argument is there which would make another placement better?

Edited by Impossible, 09 April 2009 - 03:35 AM.

[KJ Contrarian]

What argument is there which would make another placement better?

Question: What is your opinion as to the significance (If any) of the Trident? The resurrected Ganon in Oracles wields the Trident, as he does in Alttp, while Ganon in LoZ does not.

[SOAP]

What argument is there which would make another placement better?

Question: What is your opinion as to the significance (If any) of the Trident? The resurrected Ganon in Oracles wields the Trident, as he does in Alttp, while Ganon in LoZ does not.

Perhaps the Miyamoto Timeline should be revisted?

LoZ/AoL->FS/FSA->ALttP/LA anyone?

And to answer the original question, Oracles placement can be answered depending on whetther the sword in Oracles si the Master Sword and how literally the line at the end of ALttP about the Mastersword sleeping forever should be taken. If you say yes to both then it must be before ALttP.

Edited by SOAP, 09 April 2009 - 08:40 AM.

[Impossible]

Question: What is your opinion as to the significance (If any) of the Trident? The resurrected Ganon in Oracles wields the Trident, as he does in Alttp, while Ganon in LoZ does not.

I think it's insignificant on the following basis:

- Much like the Master Sword, Nintendo didn't invent the Trident until ALttP, hence, like the MS, its absence from the earliest Zelda lore is irrelevant.
- The Trident did not have any significance until FSA - this does not apply retroactively to games when it was previously just a signature weapon, not timeline-relevant.
- I'm quite confident that if Nintendo gave LoZ a remake (as in an actual content remake, not an emulation or direct port, and no, NoA editing text doesn't count for anything), Ganon would have his trident. After all, it is the signature weapon of the pig Ganon in those games. And, most convincingly, Ganon in BS Zelda really does have it, and BS Zelda IS a remake of LoZ. Not canon, sure, but still made by Nintendo and still representative of intent. You can't pretend it doesn't exist and that Nintendo didn't make it with certain storyline ideas in mind just because it's not part of the timeline - these are the same people who made the other Zelda games. KnS in particular has relevance for this reason.

[KJ Contrarian]

I think it's insignificant on the following basis:

- I'm quite confident that if Nintendo gave LoZ a remake (as in an actual content remake, not an emulation or direct port, and no, NoA editing text doesn't count for anything), Ganon would have his trident. After all, it is the signature weapon of the pig Ganon in those games. And, most convincingly, Ganon in BS Zelda really does have it, and BS Zelda IS a remake of LoZ. Not canon, sure, but still made by Nintendo and still representative of intent.

Makes sense – I was interested to see where you stood on the status of the Trident in LoZ. I have been trying to formulate my own opinion on that recently, given the developer hints in BS LoZ.

With Oracles, do you also believe that, geography speaking, Holodrum & Labrynna are lands within AoL Hyrule? Obviously, pragmatically, the developers borrowed part of the AoL geography port that they had been working on in order to craft the Oracles geography.

I ask the question because if Holodrum & Labrynna are parts of AoL Hyrule, and Oracles follows AoL, then it would require an explanation as to why the town of “Saria” is now “Zora Village”, and why “Old Kasuto” is now “Horon Village”. It seems in that instance that the towns would have been intentionally renamed in development, which seems odd if AoL>Oracles.

[Impossible]

I think the OoS map is similar because it was originally a remake of LoZ. I think people also make up a lot of non-existent similarities in these maps because they look WAY TOO DAMN HARD INTO IT, when these random geographical connections (like where a forest or town or something happens to be) were not intended. These maps come out of individual game design, that's it.

Just to make my point on this, I should really do an OoS-LA map comparison, as I've noticed a lot of matching up there. It shows how ridiculous it is, really, to make assumptions based on some thematically similar locations. If they had the same names, a la OoT-FSA-ALttP, and were also clearly deliberately the same design for story reasons, there would be a far better point. "There's a forest here and a mountain here" isn't good enough. I can't see anything obviously deliberate in OoA's map.

Edited by Impossible, 09 April 2009 - 10:56 AM.

[Duke Serkol]

The Triforce mark in itself is a reference to AoL, as is the whole concept of the plot.

Well, I did not list that because it is what we were debating in the first place (whether it is/should be a reference or not). Anyway, you didn't really answer my question (what other similarities you see with AoL).

Oh and I forgot to mention it but... isn't it said in TP that Link bears his mark because he's the chosen hero? (And yeah, I realize Zelda and Ganon do too... but if I'm not mistaken, it was said, despite that) I'm not saying that the two marks are the same in nature of course, they are not, but seeing as it appears important to you to find some origin for the legends Impa mentions...

Also, I just remembered: according to Jacen's retranslation that on Oracles Link's hand is a birthmark. So it's different from that of AoL which appeared when Link became of age.

With Oracles, do you also believe that, geography speaking, Holodrum & Labrynna are lands within AoL Hyrule? Obviously, pragmatically, the developers borrowed part of the AoL geography port that they had been working on in order to craft the Oracles geography.

I ask the question because if Holodrum & Labrynna are parts of AoL Hyrule, and Oracles follows AoL, then it would require an explanation as to why the town of “Saria” is now “Zora Village”, and why “Old Kasuto” is now “Horon Village”. It seems in that instance that the towns would have been intentionally renamed in development, which seems odd if AoL>Oracles.

More to the point, the question that would need to be asked is: how come those lands had become part of Hyrule under the rule of the just king and yet after the Link of AoL becomes the next great King to rule with the Triforce they are now independant lands?
That is one additional reason why I prefer to place Oracles after ALttP and before the Sleeping Zelda story... but I didn't really mean to bring it up, since I knew the general reaction would be "OMG, geography is stupid, you fail!!"

Edited by Duke Serkol, 09 April 2009 - 05:53 PM.

[Impossible]

Oh and I forgot to mention it but... isn't it said in TP that Link bears his mark because he's the chosen hero? (And yeah, I realize Zelda and Ganon do too... but if I'm not mistaken, it was said, despite that) I'm not saying that the two marks are the same in nature of course, they are not, but seeing as it appears important to you to find some origin for the legends Impa mentions...

Because he was chosen by the gods, actually (I think Jumbie fixed this one). It's the same deal with Zelda and Ganon, and it's because they have Triforce pieces. Again, it's not going to create an association specifically between the mark and heroes.

I don't think Holodrum and Labrynna were ever intended to be seen as parts of Hyrule, so it doesn't mean much. Holodrum looks more like the main Hyrule we're familiar with, anyway, not just an AoL region. And people just need to get over the idea that there's some massive link here.





Mountains in the north? A beach in the south? Water northeast? Desert southeast? Hell, even a castle that becomes ruins just east of center, a lake south of there, and forest-y areas to the west? HOLODRUM IS ACTUALLY KOHOLINT!

[Duke Serkol]

Because he was chosen by the gods, actually (I think Jumbie fixed this one). It's the same deal with Zelda and Ganon, and it's because they have Triforce pieces. Again, it's not going to create an association specifically between the mark and heroes.

And yet I'm pretty sure Link is told that he has the makr because he's the hero chosen by the gods, thus associated the mark and that status.

...but seriously would you tell me the other similarities you see between the Oracle games and AoL? I really am curious to know about those so please, share your observations on the matter.

[jacensolo06]

Also, I just remembered: according to Jacen's retranslation that on Oracles Link's hand is a birthmark. So it's different from that of AoL which appeared when Link became of age.

The AoL mark is called a birthmark in the Japanese, too.

[Impossible]

What, the plot premise being identical isn't enough of a similarity...? AoL's inherent differences from basically every Zelda game make it hard. The Triforce mark is more connected to AoL than any other game, because it appears as a mark signifying that he is a hero being sent on a quest. And it's best explained by AoL because it's the mark of a hero.

[Duke Serkol]

Oh don't get me wrong, I just wanted to know what similarities you saw because I find them interesting per se, not (only) for the sake of this debate.
Since you said you observed several, that got me curious as to which, if any, I might have missed (I didn't notice any other than the mark and the plot to revive Ganon I think).

Edited by Duke Serkol, 09 April 2009 - 07:08 PM.

[Fin]

Because he was chosen by the gods, actually (I think Jumbie fixed this one). It's the same deal with Zelda and Ganon, and it's because they have Triforce pieces. Again, it's not going to create an association specifically between the mark and heroes.

And yet I'm pretty sure Link is told that he has the makr because he's the hero chosen by the gods, thus associated the mark and that status.

I could be wrong, but wasn't he told that by the Light Spirits? I think as messengers of the gods they'd actually know the precise meaning of the Triforce mark in this instance. Compare this with Impa, who interprets the mark itself to mean Link's a hero.

[MikePetersSucks]

The AoL mark is called a birthmark in the Japanese, too.

Before anyone runs to town on this, the word that Jacen translates into "birthmark" is a bit muddy. As one of the rare quirks of the language, all marks can be translated as "birthmark" when converted into English, unless it's manmade, like a tattoo. This is partly because of some stuffy mythological cultural stuff about how birth is seen to work in Japan and yadda yadda yadda, but basically, we know that AOL Link's mark appeared on his 16th birthday still, and it being a birthmark doesn't change this. The same could be said of a new mole that wasn't there before.

[SOAP]

Do people really not consider the Mastersword in the Oracle series important to it's time line placement. If aLttp's ending it to be taken literally that places the Oracles before ALttP. If you have a timeline with OoT> MM >> TP>> ALttP, Oracles easily bridges the gap between TP and and ALttP. I'd then have the FS games after Oracles.