169 replies to this topic

[jman]

It's normal believing things that are different from my theory. If not, what would be the point on writing? To try to convince other people...

And also, I should apologize for my absolute lazeness at answering you. I have had lots of exams, and I couldn't answer. Oh well. And why I should the word "unsensible" so much? Blame my incredible lack of vocabulary.

Don't sweat it. I shouldnt be on here, I have a major folio due in one week's time, and an exam after that.
I can't believe I've even been thinking about this stuff, let alone writing about it. Well good luck with your exams, I hopefully won't be on here too much in the coming couple of weeks.

[Showsni]

I don't think unsensible is a real English word... Try nonsensical. Or insensible, but that means something different.

1. ALttP is a prequel to AoL. Canon fact - see the back of the box.
2. AoL's BS king hides the ToC. This must therefore be after ALttP, where the ToC is used.
3. Zelda in AoL's BS is the first Zelda.
4. There is a Zelda in ALttP, though.
5. If they are the same Zelda, the backstory doesn't quite add up - particularly the absence of Link, presence of Zelda's brother, Zelda's age, etc.
6. So we have a contradiction in canon, as Zelda is put to sleep after the ToC is hidden.

[Fyxe]

Of course, that little contradiction can be explained away by saying that the Zelda in AoL was the first one to start the naming tradition - it never says that there wasn't any princesses called Zelda before the tradition started.

But yes, it is still a fair contradiction. Such as the 'Master Sword sleeps forever' line.

[Duke Serkol]

1. ALttP is a prequel to AoL. Canon fact - see the back of the box.
2. AoL's BS king hides the ToC. This must therefore be after ALttP, where the ToC is used.
3. Zelda in AoL's BS is the first Zelda.
4. There is a Zelda in ALttP, though.
5. If they are the same Zelda, the backstory doesn't quite add up - particularly the absence of Link, presence of Zelda's brother, Zelda's age, etc.
6. So we have a contradiction in canon, as Zelda is put to sleep after the ToC is hidden.

Technically one could say that the contradiction did not necessarily happen with the release of ALttP (but it certainly did with later games, making this a moot point).
From ALttP, we know the Triforce obeys whoever touches it for as long as he or she lives. If Link died out there in the sea after LA, the King could rule with the Triforce and with magical blue pills even conceive a son.

So yeah, ALttP Zelda can be the one from AoL's backstory... it's just no pretty at all as it requires Link to die and not from old age (not to mention falling for the "evil wizard pretending to be good" ruse twice in a generation )

What do we know about Zelda's age, btw?

[Showsni]

In ALttP? Or AoL's BS? Not much... All we've really got to go on is the artists' impressions from the official art. And the fact that she's old enough to kiss Link (AoL) or make a plan to escape Agahnim (ALttP)...

[Duke Serkol]

she's old enough to kiss Link (AoL) or make a plan to escape Agahnim (ALttP)...

Which judging by Anime standards would mean any age from 12 up

Seriously though, I'd bet she's (physically) the same age as Link in AoL: 16.
Proabably around that in ALttP too.

Edited by Duke Serkol, 18 October 2006 - 08:44 PM.

[mohammedali]

No right or wrong answer
After many debates (especially with Showsni and Tri), last I recall there was a general acceptance that there is no definate placement for Sleeping Zelda.
Given the evidence, Sleeping Zelda could have referenced two Kings in the BS (meaning it comes before aLttP etc), or could have a different interpretation of what first generation means (and therefore come after aLttP). Both ideas make assumptions based on the information, and neither actually contradict the story. Therefore, leave it to the theorist on which he or she feels more strongly about (i.e. Zelda being the first princess or there being more than one King), and respect that given neither contradict the BS itself, there is no right or wrong answer. You can argue about it till the cows come home, but there is no definative proof either way.

Mohammed Ali

[Raien]

There is a simple explanation for Sleeping Zelda. AoL's manual says that she is the reason why all the Hyrule princesses are called Zelda after her. This does not say that none of the Hyrule princesses are called Zelda before her.

If someone called Bob decided to name all his children Bob, does that make it impossible for his grandfather to be Bob?

The King of Hyrule in AoL's manual split the Triforce and hid the Triforce of Courage so that only the Hero would be able to retrieve it and save Hyrule from the age of chaos. No other situation has this occurance so we must place sleeping Zelda's existence between ALTTP and LoZ.

[CID Farwin]

Of course, that little contradiction can be explained away by saying that the Zelda in AoL was the first one to start the naming tradition - it never says that there wasn't any princesses called Zelda before the tradition started.

*Ahem*

"First generation" could mean a plethora of things not limited to:

1.That she is part of the first generation of hylians.
2.That she is the first princesss named Zelda.
3.That she is the first of a line of Zeldas: Zelda I, Zelda, II, etc. not neccicarilly the first zelda.

IF the magician mentioned in AoL backstory IS Aghanim(Ganon) Then it is physically impossible for the Sleeping Zelda to be the first zelda ever.

Thank you.

[MikePetersSucks]

...

And your point is...?

[CID Farwin]

...

And your point is...?

...
And my point is that I thougt I already cleared up this:

3. Zelda in AoL's BS is the first Zelda.

P.S.
"Master sword sleeps forever," I don't recall seeing a master sword in LoZ or AoL, which are what I see as the games last in the timeline.

[Arturo]

But it appears in Kodai no Sekiban/Ancient Stone Tablets, the sequel of ALttP. Also, it appears in the Oracles, although this is diputed by some people, me for example.

[MikePetersSucks]

And the AOL BS can't include the first Zelda ever without some extreme fanfiction.

[LionHarted]

But it appears in Kodai no Sekiban/Ancient Stone Tablets, the sequel of ALttP. Also, it appears in the Oracles, although this is diputed by some people, me for example.

If we include BS Zelda 2, we'd have to include BS Zelda 1, wouldn't we?

[Fyxe]

If we include BS Zelda 2, we'd have to include BS Zelda 1, wouldn't we?

Not if you know the slightest thing about it.

The first BS Zelda is a remake. It's exactly the same plot and essentially the same game with a slightly different overworld and dungeons and with the BS-X mascot taking Link's place.

You wouldn't count the OoT Master Quest as a seperate story.

Kodai No Sekiban, however, is a sequel.

[LionHarted]

Kodai No Sekiban, however, is a sequel.

In the same way that the Palace of the Four Sword in ALttP for GBA is a side-quest.

[Raien]

In the same way that the Palace of the Four Sword in ALttP for GBA is a side-quest.

But the Palace of the Four Sword is not really a side-quest. It's bonus content, in the same way that Mercenaries is a bonus mini-game for Resident Evil 4. Was it Link in ALTTP who completed Four Swords? No it was not, so how did Link prove himself worthy of the Palace without defeating both Ganon and Vaati himself?

That said, I don't think either that BS Zelda 2 is a canon sequel. I think the information provided within the game can be used in conjunction with LA to give us an understanding of the transition from ALTTP to LoZ, but I don't think the events themselves play a role in the timeline.

[Arturo]

The difference between BS Zelda and KnS is that while the first one is based on LoZ's story, changing nothing, the second has a completely different story.

And the thing about you having to have killed both Vaati and Ganon is just for gameplay mechanics, it's a way of making it the last dungeon. But it clearly happens before Link defeated ganon.

Edited by Arturo, 26 October 2006 - 12:19 PM.

[LionHarted]

The difference between BS Zelda and KnS is that while the first one is based on LoZ's story, changing nothing, the second has a completely different story.

Yet, like the Palace of the Four Sword in GBA ALttP, I could easily consider KnS to be a "bonus" game, released with the BS-X system to promote the online play.

[Arturo]

All Zelda games are made to promote Nintendo videosystems. But that doesn't make all Zelda un-canon.

[MikePetersSucks]

Whatever you argue, Lionharted, any attacks on KnS's canonicity is superficial, and you'd save more face by just admitting you don't want it to be canon by that virtue alone.

[LionHarted]

Whatever you argue, Lionharted, any attacks on KnS's canonicity is superficial, and you'd save more face by just admitting you don't want it to be canon by that virtue alone.

Considering a vast majority of the fanbase has no idea what it is, I'm curious as to why it even needs to be considered.

[Fyxe]

Considering a vast majority of the fanbase has no idea what it is,

That's because you're thinking of Americans. Japan is the home of Nintendo, Zelda and of course, where the BS-X was released. And actually, most proper Zelda fans know about it.

[Raien]

Yet, like the Palace of the Four Sword in GBA ALttP, I could easily consider KnS to be a "bonus" game, released with the BS-X system to promote the online play.

There is actually quite a large difference between the two as KnS was released as a full-blown Zelda game with a full-blown story whereas the PoFS was literally an add-on dungeon with no storyline at all. If the PoFS had something important to say then maybe we could take it more seriously, but it is quite obvious now that it really was made to take advantage of the FS connectivity.

[Arturo]

And the Legend of the Fairy was made for the GBA connectivity thing. But that doesn't mean it's uncanonic.

[Raien]

And the Legend of the Fairy was made for the GBA connectivity thing. But that doesn't mean it's uncanonic.

That's debatable.

[Arturo]

It's in the game, therefore it's canonic. I don't see how it'¡s debatable. Yes, it's a stupid legend, but that doesn't make it non-canonic

[Raien]

It's in the game, therefore it's canonic. I don't see how it'¡s debatable. Yes, it's a stupid legend, but that doesn't make it non-canonic

Based on that mentality, the appearance of the word "Triumph Forks" on a book in TMC's library proves that it takes place after TWW. It's in the game; it's canonic.

[Arturo]

No, that word could be used before TWW. If you say once a stupid word that doesn't mean no-one has said it before.

[Raien]

No, that word could be used before TWW. If you say once a stupid word that doesn't mean no-one has said it before.

The term has a definite meaning within TWW. Everyone in OoT knew that it was called the "Triforce" but after the Great Flood, everyone had forgotten it. The name changed to "Triumph Forks". Using only the intended meaning and not an alternative speculated meaning, this places TMC after TWW.