340 replies to this topic

[Fyxe]

Not to be a jerk, Fyxe, but I like how for most of the replies to my post, you just said, "No, it doesn't," but you didn't elaborate on why you disagree with me.

You didn't elaborate on why your points were true. If I saw something untrue, I said so. I don't see why I should explain why it's untrue if it's just blatantly untrue. I don't have time to waste to refute unsubstantiated claims. o.o

Far be it from me to tell me that you must have a reason to disagree, but I have seen you debate before, and I know that you are above arguements that are basically equal to "Nuh-uh!!! " I am not trying to insult you. I am saying that I know for a fact that you can do better than that.

Yes, but... I get bored sometimes. XP

It has to me mentioned to be present? Maybe I misunderstand the definition of retcon.

No, you didn't, but you can't claim it's a retcon based on evidence that *requires* it to be a retcon.

Hahahah! I just remembered the perfect example for this. Near the end of season 5 of the TV series Scrubs, the main character J.D. meets Dr. Kim Briggs. She has supposedly been at Sacred Heart Hospital (the series' main setting) since before the show even began (back in 2001), but she makes her first appearance in this episode. Turk (J.D.'s best friend) points out to J.D. that even though Dr. Briggs has never been seen or mentioned up until this point in the series, she has been at the hospital all along. The episodes shows several flashbacks to previous episodes, and Dr. Briggs is superimposed into old snippets of episodes from the past (as a joke, of course).

As much as I love Scrubs, this isn't really comparible, because it explains itself immediately. You're saying it's a retcon despite the fact that it may not be. That bit in Scrubs HAS to be a retcon because they *make* it one. Your evidence on the Light Force bit being a retcon is based upon the theory that it already is a retcon. It's self-fulfilling, and not reasonable.

To answer your question, no the light force has never been mentioned before TMC, but that definitely doesn't mean that it couldn't have just been there all along.

No, but by the same token, you can't deny that it might imply that the Light Force and the Triforce are one and the same. And there's actually more evidence for that. I'm not saying it's the case, but it might be.

Where does TMC imply that TMC's backstory isn't the first time that the Minish have come to Hyrule?

Zelda states that the door to the Minish's world opens every 100 years. How would they know this if it's only ever opened once before? The Minish also seem very at home in Hyrule, like they're used to the door opening every now and again and crossing between the worlds.

Then why are the people like "OMFG MONSTERS!!!" whenever the chest is opened at the beginning of the game and monsters are all over Hyrule? There is a man or woman in Hyrule Town that says Hyrule has become more dangerous lately.

Um, firstly, because they're monsters. Usually 'argh, look out' is the natural reaction. Also, they say MORE dangerous, implying it's dangerous at other times.

It's similar to Link's Awakening, where the number of monsters is increasing, so things are more dangerous, but nobody treats the monsters as completely unnatural, just nasty and the numbers are unexpected.

Yes, a few monsters probably existed, like the Armos, but the Ropes, Keese, Octoroks, Keatons, etc. that we see come out of the chest were not present between TMC's backstory and TMC. The only reason I can see anyone saying anything differently would be because they don't like the facts and want to make some of their own.

You're making up facts. Where is it said that no monsters like that existed anywhere?

Yes, and all of the games can just be Tingle's dream, too, but you don't see me assuming that it happened just because it can happen, do you?

What the heavenly fuck?

WHAT THE FUCK. Do you realise what you just said? You just said that no game can occur in the past because it can happen. By that logic, you are assuming that a game exists before OoT because it can happen. You're saying that's akin to saying that Tingle is dreaming it all.

See how stupid that is?

You can't just deny the facts given by TMC (that the Minish are the source of the rupees, hearts, etc. around Hyrule) and then not give a reason for it. I know that you are above that.

I can deny that every Rupee and every Heart in every bush was put there by the Minish, because it's never said that's the case. Also, you're the one who assumes the Minish have only been around for 100 years.

If we are to use as little fan fiction/assumptions/w/etf you want to call it as possible, then the Minish only came to Hyrule twice.

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. By that logic, we are to assume that Zelda never moved from the Courtyard even once when Link was getting the Spiritual Stones. That's bad logic. Especially when based on the things I've already pointed out about the door being a regular thing.

I just called it that because I thought that was the fan-given nickname for it. Whatever the Hylian is called that appears in TWW also appears on the books in the library in TMC.

As far as I know, there is only two types of Hylian, and only one is translatable, but oh well.

You are missing the idea that every single piece of evidence wasn't neccisarily meant to be literal. It might just be the writers way of symbolically starting the green hat trend. The key word is might, though, since we are not the writers and do not know for sure what the purpose of Ezlo giving Link the green hat was. I am just saying not to claim that you know it wasn't supposed to mean anything since you were not a writer for TMC, either.

I'm not saying I do know, but I don't think it's evidence enough to place TMC before OoT, which everyone seems to do.

[The Missing Link]

No offense, but I think it's very important to play a game fully before you argue it's placement in the timeline,

Fyxe, I love you. Have my children.

Okay, not quite that far, but the idea is generally somewhat the same. I've been saying this for years, and finally I hear my words echoed. You have earned 530 experience points or something.

I think we've learned a valuable lesson with this topic. It is not possible to create a topic to just gather evidence for and against something, as such a topic will quickly degenerate to arguments about how evidence brought up isn't proof. Oh well, such is life.

Because very few people understand the subtle difference between the words "proof," "evidence," and "speculation."

[Showsni]

Also, about the Minish. Assuming that they came to Hyrule more than twice is not neccisary in order for TMC's story to work. Basically, they come to Hyrule 100 years prior to TMC. They give the hero of men the Picori Blade. Many of them stay behind and start placing items in grass, under rocks, etc., and the door closes. 100 years later, the door opens again, and TMC begins. Occam's Razor does not encourage unneccisary excess, and saying that they came more than twice is doing just that. I am going somewhere with this, so hold on.

That's just wrong. For starters, the MC backstory is probably more than 100 years before MC. It's "a long, long time ago" by one quote, and "Long, long ago, and then even longer before that" by another - more than 100 years. And it's certain the Minish have come to Hyrule many times before this. The first character you meet in the game, bar Zelda and Master Smith, says "They say that, every hundred years, the Picori come to Hyrule... And this is the 100th year, to the day, of the last time the Picori were here!" How would they even know the Picori came every 100 years if this was only the second time?

[Mgoblue201]

No offense, but I think it's very important to play a game fully before you argue it's placement in the timeline...

I have to respond to this since TML quoted it. My point did not hang on whether I played it or not. That was wholly irrelevent. My entire point rested on what Aonuma said about the game's placement since I was dealing purely with creator intention. Even if I had played FSA, it still would've been irrelevent. I wasn't using things within the game to prove its place. I was trying to prove that by the creator's own words that TMC was meant to come at the beginning. If I wanted to use in game proof to argue FSA's placement instead of creator quotes, well, that's an argument I wouldn't even engage in. Even if I did play FSA, I probably still wouldn't fit it in my timeline with any certainty. It's not like I have a timeline 100% in concrete. I judge things based on possibility. Maybe I think the Oracles have a 60% possibility of coming after LTTP and 40% of after AoL. I don't include it in my timeline because I'm not sure. I definitely wouldn't be sure of FSA regardless if I played it or not, so it wouldn't go in my timeline either.

Regardless, I think some people are too obsessed with fitting every game in perfectly. If FSA does indeed come before OOT, then I can see two piquant possibilities. Either the game isn't supposed to have much continuity and nothing in the game was done with the timeline in mind, or everything we know about the series is wrong. I was aware of the Dark World before this argument. But with every game Nintendo keeps changing what we think about the Zelda series. I'd personally go for the former to the chagrin of many timeliners.

[D~N]

Showsni, you've showed me solid proof:
"And this is the 100th year, to the day, of the last time the Picori were here!"
I think the operative words are "last time". That immediately proves that there have been, infact, other times. It's right there in the wording. There is little arguement against it, I'm afraid. The wording would been entirely diferent, like "of the first time the Picori were here!" or something, had they come only once.

[Chaltab]

You didn't elaborate on why your points were true. If I saw something untrue, I said so. I don't see why I should explain why it's untrue if it's just blatantly untrue. I don't have time to waste to refute unsubstantiated claims. o.o

Just to nitpick, I think it's clear that the Minish were clearly being used to explain the existence of things in the grass and under rocks. You were awful quick to dismiss a clear implication of the games.

On the other hand, the Minish being present throughout the series doesn't mean that TMC came first, just that they weren't know about until several hundred years before TMC.

[Vertiboy]

I need to prove that monsters were not prevelant between TMC and its backstory. I played TMC for a little while and found some evidence.

Remember what it was like when you started a file on TMC? At the very beginning of the game, before Vaati breaks the Picori Blade and opens the chest, the people of Hyrule Town are outside of their houses. Then Vaati frees the monsters from the chest. As you progress through the game, pay special attention to Hyrule Town near the end. People have gone into their houses, and soldiers walk the streets. Everyone tells you that there are monsters running around lately, and it is too dangerous to be outside. Why might that be? It is because there were little to no monsters in Hyrule between TMC and its backstory. No, there is no quote from the king in TMC that says, "You know, Link, no monsters have been in Hyrule since the hero of men sealed them away in the chest with the Picori Blade." If that is what I must have to prove my point, then no I cannot do that, and I have failed. The problem is, though, not every piece of evidence in Zelda games is that straightforward. While I am not a Zelda writer, I can say that the writers probably expect for the player to get some information on their own from indirect information rather than spelling it out for them. The people who need to have facts spelled out for them watch Seasame Street, and I don't think that the show has quite the same target audience as Zelda games. (Though you might not know it from the difficulty of some recent games, but that is another issue.) Basically, I interpret Hyrule Town's reaction to the chest being broken to mean that few or no monsters have been in Hyrule between TMC and it's backstory. This indirectly proves that no current games (TLoZ, TAoL, ALttP, LA, OoT, MM, OoA, OoS, FS, TWW, FSA, and TP) can come between TMC and it's backstory, no matter the game's placement in the timeline.

Also, the Minish only need to come to Hyrule twice in order for TMC's story to work as a whole. Approximately 100 years is all that is needed from the start of TMC's backstory to the end of TMC. Saying that the Minish came any more is fan fiction by my definition. By my definition, if it is an unneccisary piece of information or time that isn't needed in order for the story to become whole, it is fan fiction. Saying that the Minish came to Hyrule more than twice is, in my opinion, fan fiction. If there is an explaination that requires no fan fiction (Minish came twice) and an explaination that requires fan fiction (Minish came more than twice), the one without fan fiction wins. That is how it will always work. I don't know if you share the same definition of fan fiction as I do, but there is no need for them to come more than twice, and any more times is an extra, pointless addition to the story of TMC.

I am fully aware that the Minish can come more than twice (Minish come - OoT - Minish come again/hero of men - Minish come 3rd time/TMC). My Tingle's dream example was saying that just because something is possible and cannot be proven wrong, it doesn't mean that it is right. We cannot prove that fan fiction is wrong, so why can't it just be right? I am saying that just because an event is possible within the Zelda universe, even if it doesn't disrupt the story, it doesn't mean that it is okay to say that said event happens. Basically, while the Minish coming to Hyrule three times does not hurt anything and cannot be disproven, it is not neccisary, therefore, it does not mean that it is right. The reason I am trying to say that we must stick with the idea that the Minish only came twice is that if they came any more than that, the order I put in ()s above would be possible; TMC would not have to come before OoT if the Minish came three times. They only need to come twice, though, so that is all that we will consider official.

Plus, one of the Minish trophies clearly states that the Minish are the source of all of the rupees, hearts, etc. around Hyrule. That is a fact. Before, TMC came along, the explaination for how items got into grass and under rocks so fast was, "It's just a video game." It still is just a video game, but now, we have an explaination within the Zelda universe itself for the rupees and hearts of Hyrule. Little men put things there! (I am not crazy! I saw them! I swear there are little men! ) Basically, to rehash my Scrubs example, but in a different way, the Minish are like Dr. Kim Briggs, whose first appearance was near the end of season 5, even though she has "been there all along." I believe that the Minish are the same. Stuff appeared in the grass "just 'cuz" before TMC, but apparently little men have "been there all along" putting items in the grass, under rocks, etc. It is obvious that was what was intended. It was a retcon of how items get in the grass and all over creation.

The Minish were apparently in Hyrule all along. That means that they are present in all other games to date, placing hearts and rupees all over Hyrule. This would mean that they need to be present during OoT. If the Minish came more than twice, they could have come before OoT, after OoT (during TMC's backstory), and then during TMC. As I have explained, though, saying that they came more than twice is unneccisary and equal to fan fiction, so officially they came twice. Since no games prevelant with monsters can come between TMC and its backstory, and since the Minish must be present before OoT in order to place items around Hyrule, TMC must come before OoT. That is the conclusion that one should come to if one tries to avoid unneccisary events and fan fiction.

As I have explained, though, that's only if you ignore the evidence that seems to suggest a post-OoT TMC, like TWW Hylian on the library books.

This brings up an interesting question: is there a ladder of canon? Star Wars fans made up the Holocron. Should we make a Zelda version of the Holocron? Can we even do that?

The Minish trophy is something that you aquire in a sidequest. It is not a part of the main game. The library books are not a part of the main game either, but they are also in the background and require translation in order to understand. Basically, which is more canon: a sidequest or a part of the game's background?

The same problem came up during the split timeline debate. The sidequest of the Legend of the Fairy suggest that their is a single timeline, but parts of the main game (the Japanese Hero of Time legend) suggest that there is a split timeline. Which is more canon? Obviously, the main game information because of Aonuma's quotes that confirm the split timeline. (Yes, I know, Fyxe. "Parellel." You don't need to correct me. Apparently, there is no other possible interpretation for that quote than that TP is a gaiden, despite all of the holes in that, and even though saying that he meant that there is a split timeline would make said quote consistent with the quote in which he said that TWW happens hundreds of years after OoT's adult ending, but hey, we can ignore consistency as long as you get your way. [/rant] We are debating about evidence from TMC, not the split timeline debate, so please refrain from trying to debate about it.) Anyway, should we fan try to form some kind of Zelda holocron? Here is my suggestion.

Creator's Intent
Main Game
Sidequests
Background

What do you guys think?

[Fyxe]

Too Long, Didn't Read.

Also, I'm annoyed that you seconded guessed my opinion and insulted me. So whatever. I can't be arsed.

So long as I get my way? When will some of you guys realise that I don't actually dispute stuff to boost my own ego, as you so love to believe? I've got better things to do with my time than get into childish arguements. So I'm ridding myself from this particular one.

Edited by Fyxe, 03 April 2007 - 06:50 PM.

[Hero of Slime]

No way. When it comes to the timeline, creators intent is the only thing that matters since everything else has nothing to do with the timeline.

[The Missing Link]

No way. When it comes to the timeline, creators intent is the only thing that matters since everything else has nothing to do with the timeline.

And when creator's intent changes or, dare I say, creates conflicts or contradictions in the game? Then what?

[MikePetersSucks]

Everyone tells you that there are monsters running around lately, and it is too dangerous to be outside. Why might that be? It is because there were little to no monsters in Hyrule between TMC and its backstory.

Or there's merely MORE monsters.

Also, the Minish only need to come to Hyrule twice in order for TMC's story to work as a whole. Approximately 100 years is all that is needed from the start of TMC's backstory to the end of TMC. Saying that the Minish came any more is fan fiction by my definition. By my definition, if it is an unneccisary piece of information or time that isn't needed in order for the story to become whole, it is fan fiction. Saying that the Minish came to Hyrule more than twice is, in my opinion, fan fiction. If there is an explaination that requires no fan fiction (Minish came twice) and an explaination that requires fan fiction (Minish came more than twice), the one without fan fiction wins. That is how it will always work. I don't know if you share the same definition of fan fiction as I do, but there is no need for them to come more than twice, and any more times is an extra, pointless addition to the story of TMC.

Despite all of the context clues otherwise? If they only visited twice, people wouldn't have a festival for it, or a "long, long, long time ago" or even "Every."

YOU'RE the one making assumptions, and don't even bother to explain these inconsistencies with your theory.

Plus, one of the Minish trophies clearly states that the Minish are the source of all of the rupees, hearts, etc. around Hyrule. That is a fact. Before, TMC came along, the explaination for how items got into grass and under rocks so fast was, "It's just a video game." It still is just a video game, but now, we have an explaination within the Zelda universe itself for the rupees and hearts of Hyrule. Little men put things there! (I am not crazy! I saw them! I swear there are little men! wacko.gif ) Basically, to rehash my Scrubs example, but in a different way, the Minish are like Dr. Kim Briggs, whose first appearance was near the end of season 5, even though she has "been there all along." I believe that the Minish are the same. Stuff appeared in the grass "just 'cuz" before TMC, but apparently little men have "been there all along" putting items in the grass, under rocks, etc. It is obvious that was what was intended. It was a retcon of how items get in the grass and all over creation.

Alright. So if they only came twice, how come there's ALWAYS rupees EVEYWHERE always? You expect me to believe that in AOL there's still Rupees that have never, ever been disturbed since TMC?

Creator's Intent
Main Game
Sidequests
Background

Curious. Why do you put Creator's Intent first, and what do you exactly mean by "Backround"?

No way. When it comes to the timeline, creators intent is the only thing that matters since everything else has nothing to do with the timeline.

And after years of suspicion, Zol finally proves to me he's an idiot.

[Hero of Slime]

Creator intent is more than what the creators actually say, it is also what they put in the games and the backstorys of the games to imply timeline connections. For example the backstory of MM shows that the creators intended it to be a sequel to OoT. Anything that the creators did not intend to use as a timeline hint is not relevant. Geography for example.

[Vertiboy]

Despite all of the context clues otherwise? If they only visited twice, people wouldn't have a festival for it, or a "long, long, long time ago" or even "Every."

The festival is annual. What other context clues otherwise are there? It is funny that you mention them, but yet you didn't provide me with an example.

YOU'RE the one making assumptions, and don't even bother to explain these inconsistencies with your theory.

What assumptions am I making exactly? You can't just accuse me of making them, and then not explain what they are.

Alright. So if they only came twice, how come there's ALWAYS rupees EVEYWHERE always?

TMC's backstory and TMC come before OoT. Problem solved.

You expect me to believe that in AOL there's still Rupees that have never, ever been disturbed since TMC?

No, I don't expect you to believe that. The Minish don't just all die out the moment TMC ends. They are present throughout the series. They are present during TAoL, placing items in the grass (are there even items in grass and under rocks in TAoL?). You missed the point of the Scrubs example. A retcon has been put in place to say that the Minish were present in Hyrule all throughout the series, even though this is the first we ever hear of them. They are just so small that we do not notice them in other games. That is what I got out of it, and I don't think that it is a stretch to believe.

Curious. Why do you put Creator's Intent first, and what do you exactly mean by "Backround"?

Ah, crap! I knew I wasn't specific enough. As I am sure you are aware, there is TWW Hylian on the books in the library. It is in the literal background of the game. This seems to imply that the age of OoT Hylian has passed, and a new form of Hylian is being spoken. Others seem to interpret this as if it merely means that TWW Hylian has been around before OoT, even while OoT Hylian was still being spoken. A few, though, interpret it to merely be an Easter egg, which is why I placed TWW Hylian on the books.

I put creators intent first because it is their series, and if they intend for something to be true, no matter how horribly inconsistent it is, they are right. Here is an example.

Let's say that it is 1998, and Miyamoto wants to deal with the Imprisoning War in a game. He makes a very literal interpretation of the IW legend, with Link as a Knight of Hyrule, old men in cloaks as Sages, etc. Then he tunes into TV Land, and sees an episode of The Munsters that he really likes. He likes it so much that he decided to get the rights to it and incorporate it in the IW reimagining somehow. He takes that episode of The Munsters, then slaps a 10 second clip of Ganon being sealed in the Sacred Realm after destroying the entire Triforce. Then he says that is the IW. That is stupid, and would never happen. It is very inconsistent with the IW legend and does not sync up to ALttP well, either. If Miyamoto says that episode combined with the clip is the IW, no matter how stupid it is, he is right. It is his universe. In the Zelda universe, he is God. What he says goes. That is creators' intent. The Zol is not an idiot for believing that creators' intent is most important. You are saying that The Zol is stupid because he believes that a creator has control over his or her own creation. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that no matter how much a creator intends for something to be true in their own created universe, they are wrong if found evidence in said universe is not consistent with the creator's intent. You believe that the creator can be wrong about his beliefs on his created universe. You are 100% wrong if that is what you believe. I can say that I know that for a fact.

Edited by Vertiboy, 04 April 2007 - 12:38 AM.

[Hero of Slime]

As an example of creators intent being important, I don't think the creators intended for exactly two hundred years to come between TMC and the time the minish first arriving from their world. The game creators always leave time span details open like this, it does not make sense for them to suddenly say exactly two hundred years for TMC.

I am not saying TMC is not first. I think it is, but there is no solid evidence to say that it is. I could fit anywhere.

[The Missing Link]

Creator intent is more than what the creators actually say, it is also what they put in the games and the backstorys of the games to imply timeline connections. For example the backstory of MM shows that the creators intended it to be a sequel to OoT. Anything that the creators did not intend to use as a timeline hint is not relevant. Geography for example.

Creator intent != Creator public statements? Oh this is rich. Explain.

[Fyxe]

He's right actually, TML. You realise that there is more than one creator behind the Zelda series? Aonuma may be the director, but there's a whole team of people creating the games.

Has everyone so quickly forgotten the infamous 'Miyamoto timeline'? It went clearly against the intent of the scriptwriters and designers. Was what he said gospel? Nobody seriously thought that TLoZ came before ALttP.

And away I go again.

Edited by Fyxe, 04 April 2007 - 12:12 PM.

[Mgoblue201]

Creator intent is not that simple. First I will say this. What is in the game does seperate itself by increments from published statements. I say this because in game evidence is immediate. It is what it is. But creator quotes can be any number of things. The problem is that people just throw creator quotes out because of the possibility that they could have been mistranslated or misunderstood or whatever. That's just not good enough. I think creator quotes should stand until proven otherwise or if they just plain don't make sense. The only quote that I have ever rejected outright was Miyamoto's infamous LoZ-LTTP order, and that quote was made six years after LTTP came out. I only rejected that because LTTP-LoZ just makes more sense from everything I know and understand about the games and how they were marketed. Hell, the way the timeline has turned out, LoZ-LTTP could almost work now (and I would not be adverse to changing if it turned out to be true). I do seek to agree with the creators first though. But everybody has their own little system of how to interpet quotes. That ultimately is the greatest strength, and in some ways the greatest fault, of timeline theorizing.

The problem is then compounded because people can interpret creator intention in a variety of different ways. I think if people truly cared about creator intention, then generally you can spot what they're trying to do, but that is not always the case. People misinterpret this all the time. And then things change, making old evidence irrelevent, and we have to figure out what still counts and what doesn't.

That's why I turned to having a series of non definitive statements. I can't wholly be sure of what the creators are doing. I was sure on the split timeline, so I basically set that into concrete, but there's some other issues, and I just don't keep a complete timeline. I'm not going to pretend I know what the creators are doing. Sure you can sometimes guess it. After TP, I jumped ship to the split timeline. I thought it was obvious what they were planning. But sometimes like FSA you just have no idea. Perhaps they're not planning anything. That's why I just don't feel the need to shove these games in a timeline. Sure I have TMC first, but I still consider it its own little saga that perhaps is attempting to relay a different legend. I don't know the exact logistics of it. And maybe even the split timeline will change in the future, and when do I know when to abandon it?

TML, you need to learn how to respond to your PMs.

Edited by Mgoblue201, 04 April 2007 - 12:16 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Creator intent != Creator public statements? Oh this is rich. Explain.

Creator intent = The games and everything said within them.

That simple enough for you?

[LionHarted]

There is none either way. ;p

TMC's plotline has virtually nothing to do with any other game, and the only cue we have is that it's before FS. Capcom maintains that it was an exploration of the FS backstory (despite Vaati exploding and there being no involvement with kidnapping maidens whatsoever), which suggests proximity to FS, obviously, which extends to implied proximity to FSA.

But really, looking at TMC itself, there's no evidence as to where it should go.

Edited by LionHarted, 04 April 2007 - 01:03 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

There is none either way.

Yes there is, or else there would be no story whatsoever.

As for FS, try something new, will ya? As has been explained a thousand times over, TMC is supposed to be the tale of the origin of the Four Sword and Vaati, not the backstory of FS. It is the only game explaining these events, and thus, it is one of the few which we know for a fact just where its intended placement is. If you need the creators to tell you this, you are blind indeed.

[LionHarted]

As for FS, try something new, will ya? As has been explained a thousand times over, TMC is supposed to be the tale of the origin of the Four Sword and Vaati, not the backstory of FS.

NP: This title is the third game in the Four Sword series. Did you plan it as a trilogy from the beginning?

HF (Capcom): We did not think to develop a trilogy from the beginning. When we developed the first Four Swords game for GBA, we created a new Hyrule legend that said that a long time ago, evil Vaati brought crisis to Hyrule and people sealed that evil. We had some thought that we wanted to carry over that story into future titles some way.

This is just my interpretation, but they seem to be saying that "this title" stemmed from "some thought that we wanted to carry over that story (i.e., "that Vaati brought crisis to Hyrule and people sealed that evil") into future titles." Either that or they're just spouting off nonsense.

And yes, yes I do need the developers to tell me this, just like I need them to tell me that OoT is the SW, that there is a split timeline, and that ALttP is before LoZ.

Edited by LionHarted, 04 April 2007 - 01:16 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

And that's supposed to prove they had no intention with TMC? Quite the opposite, I’d say.

Besides, Capcom never made a trilogy, and no-where is it said that TMC IS that part of the story, only that they wanted to carry it over into future titles. Now, and here’s the thing, TMC by all accounts does set the stage for this tale rather nicely, while still obviously not being it. Thus it is "carried over", as one would put it. The Palace of Winds, and its (apparent) subsequent submission to Vaati is what I would consider proof of this, and indeed in-game proof that TMC is NOT intended to be the backstory of FS, as the Palace is said to have been "created" (transformed) by Vaati at that time. Needles to say, that did not happen in TMC.

Of course, one could say the same thing about the missing maidens and such, that’s just not possible, is it?

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 April 2007 - 01:30 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Yes, there are teams of people working on Zelda games. [/obvious] The fact of the matter is, though, if there is someone who supervises the game's development or directs the actions, like Aonuma or people from Capcom, the odds are highly in favor that they know what they are talking about. Miyamoto was the producer of Ocarina of Time. He had to watch the progress that was being made on the game in-depth. In an interview back in 1998, everyone knows that he said that OoT is the Imprisoning War. Now whether or not that is still true now is debatable, but if he supervised the making of the game, then I would hope that he knows what he was talking about.

Which is in contrast to the Aonuma comment in which he said that FS is the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline (however you choose to interpret that statement), but yet he never really had much involvement in the making of FS besides checking on Capcom every now and then to make sure their game doesn't suck.

Even though there are other people developing Zelda games than Miyamoto, Aonuma, etc., if the directors, producers/supervisors, etc. do not know the timeline details of a game, then either they are stupid or no timeline details were put into the game in the first place.

That is why I trust comments like "TWW is hundreds of years after OoT's adult ending" or "TP is parellel to TWW," and it's why (back in '98, at least) I trusted comments like "we are dealing with the story of the Imprisoning War." They were made by people who, at the time, had a great amount of influence and observation of the Zelda series.

[LionHarted]

A good rule of thumb, from my experience:
Game directors know the ins and outs of story direction;
Game producers may not necessarily.

Aonuma directed TWW and TP, which is obviously why he has so much to say about them.
He did not direct FS, FSA, or TMC.

[Hero of Legend]

but yet he never really had much involvement in the making of FS besides checking on Capcom every now and then to make sure their game doesn't suck.

Uh... FSA was produced entirely by EAD under Aonuma, and he was involved in the creation of TMC to the point where he temporarily left the development of TP entirely in the hands of his team in order to focus his attention on the 2D title.

Even though there are other people developing Zelda games than Miyamoto, Aonuma, etc., if the directors, producers/supervisors, etc. do not know the timeline details of a game, then either they are stupid or no timeline details were put into the game in the first place.

If the producer (or director) has no interest in these things, which Miyamoto did not, one cannot expect him to know the details about them. It wasn't even Miyamoto who said OoT was the IW, FYI.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 April 2007 - 01:40 PM.

[LionHarted]

The story of FSA was in the hands of the director, not the producer.

[Hero of Legend]

Technically not even that, but everything still has to be approved by the producer in the end. Also, the references to FSA in TP should tell us something about how involved Aonuma was in FSA's story.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 April 2007 - 01:44 PM.

[D~N]

All this makes me wonder; do these guys even play the games!? I'm not trying to be rude or disrepectful to Aunoma or Miyamoto, but sometimes they just make me wonder...

Edited by D~N, 04 April 2007 - 01:53 PM.

[LionHarted]

One of the primary references, the Mirror, was destroyed. If TP was meant to connect to FSA, the developers sure have a funny way of showing it. ;p

This actually seems to me to point to an Adult-timeline FSA, but that's just me.

[Vertiboy]

If the producer (or director) has no interest in these things, which Miyamoto did not, one cannot expect him to know the details about them. It wasn't even Miyamoto who said OoT was the IW, FYI.

I see your point, but what proof do you have that Miyamoto didn't have an interest in the story of OoT while producing it? That seems like an opinion to me.

I forgot that it wasn't Aonuma who said the OoT = IW quote, so my mistake.