340 replies to this topic

[MikePetersSucks]

*Doesn't see the problem with the Master Sword in a Split Timeline. It simply...oh mah gawd, doesn't go back in time with him.*

[Chaltab]

Thanks, Jerry.

Back on topic.

I still think "Throughout the ages" is the most important phrase to TMC's early placement.

[Vertiboy]

I have a question. Where are we getting this fan fiction about the Armos? They have Goron signs on them. Big deal. That doesn't mean that the Gorons built them. The Oocca built the Armos in the Temple of Time? Now we are just pulling statements out of thin air.

According to the entire Zelda series, Armos have two origins. Some Armos are solidified soldiers (TLoZ), and other Armos were built by the Minish for the Wind Tribe (TMC). Any other origin stories are implied, therefore, they are not completely reliable. Of course, that is assuming that the origin of the Armos from TMC isn't a retcon, and it is only an intentional retcon if Capcom even had any idea of what the TLoZ manual from nearly 20 years ago says.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. If only one origin can be correct, then I would think that the 2-year old in-game origin would overtake the 21-year old manual origin.

Edited by Vertiboy, 06 April 2007 - 04:18 PM.

[Arturo]

Fyxe, please, don't call other people names.

Edited by Arturo, 06 April 2007 - 05:25 PM.

[Crazy Penguin]

Was the Armos manual detail from the US or Japanese version?

[Vertiboy]

Was the Armos manual detail from the US or Japanese version?

It is from the U.S. version, but I have no idea if it is in the Japanese manual or not.

[Crazy Penguin]

Here's the scan if anyone wants to translate.

http://home.graffiti...ap/z1-28-29.jpg

[Hero of Slime]

They have Goron signs on them. Big deal. That doesn't mean that the Gorons built them.

Why else would the statues have goron symbols on them? Why would their symbol be on somthing they did not make? The only time that I can recall when a goron symbol was shown on a non-goron artifact was in TWW, where it was on a hylian artifact also showing gorons.

[Vertiboy]

Why else would the statues have goron symbols on them? Why would their symbol be on somthing they did not make? The only time that I can recall when a goron symbol was shown on a non-goron artifact was in TWW, where it was on a hylian artifact also showing gorons.

Do you want an answer within the Zelda universe or the real world? Here is my real world explaination. Zelda games have multiple writers, character designers, directors, producers, etc. With so many details big and small in the Zelda universe, it is hard for these people to keep track of them all. I think that most people will agree with me that compared to all of the information in the Zelda universe, the Goron symbols on OoT Armos is a small detail. Not only is it small, but not everyone notices it or thinks too much about it. It just doesn't pop out. Perhaps when writing the description for the Armos trophy in TMC, some writers decided that they want to give the Armos statues an origin. They wrote that the Minish built them for the Wind Tribe. It is very similar to comic book series or movie series in which there are multiple people involved, with many small bits of information that go unnoticed, are forgotten, or simply are not thought through.

However, I can't say that I believe this to be fact because I can't prove it. It seems likely, but I can't speak for the Zelda staff at Nintendo and Capcom. It could be the result of an intentional retcon (the TMC writers noticed the origins from other games and ignored them) or just loose continuity (saying that the Minish built them was just convenient to TMC's story). If I had to choose one explaination, though, it would be the first one, since there is a vast number of information in the Zelda universe.

[Hero of Slime]

Similar to TMC's script writers, the artist who came up with the idea for OoT and MM's armos was also trying to give them an origin story. What other reason would that artist have for putting the goron symbol on the statues other than to imply that they were made by the gorons? The way I see it, it is far from fanfiction to say that armos in OoT were made by gorons.

Why do you think only one of the origins has to be correct. Couldn't the multiple armos have different origins?

[The Missing Link]

Similar to TMC's script writers, the artist who came up with the idea for OoT and MM's armos was also trying to give them an origin story. What other reason would that artist have for putting the goron symbol on the statues other than to imply that they were made by the gorons? The way I see it, it is far from fanfiction to say that armos in OoT were made by gorons.

Why do you think only one of the origins has to be correct. Couldn't the multiple armos have different origins?

They probably developed a new origin because several developers had forgotten they came up with an origin prior to the fact.

[Hero of Slime]

Yes, but why does the new origin story have to make the other ones less valid? They arn't exactly contradictory. The armos in LoZ were turned to stone, the armos in OoT and MM were made by the gorons, and the armos in TMC were built by the minish.They can all be right.

[Duke Serkol]

I still think the original soldier turned to stone idea didn't really work because of the one eye design.
But I enjoy assuming that the people of Hyrule over time came to believe that folklore tale themselves

[Fyxe]

I still think the original soldier turned to stone idea didn't really work because of the one eye design.

So someone turning into a stone statue is all fine and logical, but one eye, now, that's just MADNESS.

I would assume it's just a side effect. There are loads of identical ones, after all. It's not like there were tons of identical one-eyed soldiers who got turned to stone. Rather they were soldiers who got changed into identical Armoses.

[Duke Serkol]

I would assume it's just a side effect. There are loads of identical ones, after all. It's not like there were tons of identical one-eyed soldiers who got turned to stone.

That's a good point... though it'd be a rather odd side effect to a petrification curse (them being identical though doesn't really work in this argument since all sorts of Zelda enemies are identical among their kind)

[Vertiboy]

Why do you think only one of the origins has to be correct. Couldn't the multiple armos have different origins?

That is where this gets tricky. Did the character designers of OoT have the right to imply an origin for the Armos? They were being paid to design, not write a story, no matter how subtle or faint it is. Does the information provided by the character designers of a game from 1998 overtake the information written into the scrip of a game in '04? Again, this is tricky because Zelda has so many different contributors, and we can't exactly pin down the contributions by any one person. When the Goron symbol appeared on a proposed Armos design during the production of OoT, did Miyamoto (the supervisor) notice it and tell them to leave it, not notice it, or notice it and left it on for no canon reason? Did Miyamoto even see it at all, or was he so busy that he told the designers of the Armos to go ahead and put whatever they want into the design?

It is this kind of scenario that makes debating this particular subject hard. In my opinion, I think that Capcom was just trying to give the Armos an origin because they had no idea that they already had a few origins to begin with.

Also, the reason that I am reluctant to say that the Goron built the OoT Armos because the sign on them doesn't automatically mean that they built them. If you see a Nazi sign on some bathroom stall in a crappy busstop, do you automatically assume that the Nazis built the stall? If you see someone with an ankh tattooed on their shoulder, do you automatically assume that they are Egyptian? The Triforce isn't even original; Miyamoto has said that it is based on the mon symbol of the Japanese Hojo clan. Sometimes people use symbols other than their own simply because they think that they look good. Just because the Goron symbol appears on the Armos, it doesn't mean that the Gorons built them.

[Fyxe]

Well, the source and the technicalities of whatever magic was used is unknown. Also, it could just be folklore, and they are instead just 'Magitek' relics of the Minish and the Gorons and the various other technologically advanced people who make Armos (and make Beamos and Eyegores as side projects).

Actually, the one eye thing actually makes some sense, considering that Beamos, Eyegores and Armos are all interconnected. Beamos and Eyegores have single eyes, and so do many varieties of Armos. Even Gohdan's hands each have one eye, if I remember correctly.

In response to Vertiboy, just remember that monsters are different depending on what game you're talking about. The Armos in OoT appear primarily in Dodongo's Cavern, which is a Goron mine, and have a completely different appearance from those that show up in TMC.

I think it's fairly obvious that anyone with the right technology or magic can create a type of Armos. Thus, the intention was that in OoT, the Gorons probably made them (at least those in the Dodongo's Cavern), but in other games, their origins are different.

Much like how the Beamos in the Goron Mines of TP were obviously made by the Gorons, yet the Beamos in the Temple of Time clearly were not.

Edited by Fyxe, 07 April 2007 - 07:45 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

To that I agree Fyxe

[Vertiboy]

In response to Vertiboy, just remember that monsters are different depending on what game you're talking about. The Armos in OoT appear primarily in Dodongo's Cavern, which is a Goron mine, and have a completely different appearance from those that show up in TMC.

I think it's fairly obvious that anyone with the right technology or magic can create a type of Armos. Thus, the intention was that in OoT, the Gorons probably made them (at least those in the Dodongo's Cavern), but in other games, their origins are different.

Much like how the Beamos in the Goron Mines of TP were obviously made by the Gorons, yet the Beamos in the Temple of Time clearly were not.

I can agree with that. An explaination for this, though, could be that TMC took a creative license, and the writers knew that the continuity of the Armos' look is loose, and attempted to write an origin for all of them anyway.

As I have said, though, I can't prove anything. This is a hard topic to debate. The original intention of this thread was to gather evidence, strong or weak, that supports pre-OoT TMC and post-OoT TMC. Since we do not know the intentions of the writers of TMC, the Armos trophy can't really be considered strong evidence anymore (in my opinion), but it still should go under the 'pre-OoT TMC' column.

[SOAP]

My take on it is that TMC is to the Zelda series that Casper: A Spirited Begining was to the Casper movies. A fun little prequel to whole series that pretty much ignores the continuity of it's predecessors. Do I think that TMC comes first in the timeline? Yes. Is there any evidence for this? Not really. But it pretty much sticks out out like a sore thumb anywhere else and it can take place before OoT without changing anything we know about OoT. So there existed a Link and Zelda before the ones in OoT, so what? To me I think it just comes down to personal choice. Regardless if it comes first or not, TMC has a more important role of revealing the true origins of Vaati.

[Fyxe]

But it pretty much sticks out out like a sore thumb anywhere else

It does? I don't see why it would.

[MikePetersSucks]

Well, the source and the technicalities of whatever magic was used is unknown. Also, it could just be folklore, and they are instead just 'Magitek' relics of the Minish and the Gorons and the various other technologically advanced people who make Armos (and make Beamos and Eyegores as side projects).

Actually, the one eye thing actually makes some sense, considering that Beamos, Eyegores and Armos are all interconnected. Beamos and Eyegores have single eyes, and so do many varieties of Armos. Even Gohdan's hands each have one eye, if I remember correctly.

Are you implying the Minish created Gohdan and by extent probably the rest of the Tower of the Gods?

Because that'd be AWESHUM.

[Fyxe]

Are you implying the Minish created Gohdan and by extent probably the rest of the Tower of the Gods?

Because that'd be AWESHUM.

I was implying the very opposite.

'Lawlz'? 'Aweshum'? What's up with you today, taking AOLer classes or something? o.o

[Duke Serkol]

Are you implying the Minish created Gohdan and by extent probably the rest of the Tower of the Gods?

I think it's Mazaal and the statues in which you place the pearls that "imply" (more like heavily suggest) that, not Fyxe (though the "staying afloat" is more of a Wind Tribe thing, but we know those two used to get along real well).

Edited by Duke Serkol, 08 April 2007 - 07:51 PM.

[Vertiboy]

It does? I don't see why it would.

I'm guessing that it is a bunch of the small elements combined: the Minish placing items in the grass, the Armos origin, the symbolic start of the cap, the symbolic beginning of Link and Zelda's adventures in Hyrule, etc.

Also, the evidence is pretty subtle. There are multiple Links, so the cap doesn't mean much unless it is taken symbolically, as does the 'throughout the ages' narroration at the end. While it is obvious that Nintendo and Capcom don't care about the overall timeline as much as some of us fans do, that doesn't mean that they don't know how to be clever. You see, what most timeline theorists look for is direct, hard, and/or obvious evidence, like the heavy references to OoT in MM, TWW, and TP's backstories. The fact of the matter is, though, not every piece of evidence is that strong. Some evidence is indirect, implied, and/or subtle evidence. Alone, the fact that the Minish put crap around Hyrule doesn't mean much. Coupled with the fact that there were few to no monsters in Hyrule between TMC and its backstory (also indirect evidence; you can tell by the way that the people in Hyrule Town react to skyrocketing monster population after the chest was opened), and it seems to be that the creators were suggesting that TMC comes first, coupled with the symbolic evidence of the hat, etc.

That is just my personal interpretation. The problem with evidence is that some people want direct evidence, like a quote from the king that says, "You know, Link, Hyrule has seen few monsters since the hero of men sealed them away with the Picori Blade," or, "Link, you must take care of the monsters because I am trying to prevent a very fierce war over the Triforce from happening between many groups, including some interlopers." Spelling things out like that would insult my intelligence. I am not two years old, and I can think for myself. That is why I believe that some of the implied and symbolic evidence in TMC is important to its placement. We are not idiots, and the writers know that, so they place clues in regard to a game's placement accordingly.

That is why I am warry to debate about what counts as evidence. There are people on this forum who do not like implied evidence and who want a direct quote from the game that spells everything out. You can believe that all you want, and I will go on believing that the writers of TMC, and Zelda in general, are assuming that they are not writing for idiots.

Edited by Vertiboy, 08 April 2007 - 07:43 PM.

[Fyxe]

I don't need 'direct evidence' necessarily, I just don't see how the things you've mentioned imply anything in particular. The origins mentioned are just revelations, the implication is that the Minish have been there ALL ALONG, it's a revelation, not an origin. There's a difference. We don't SEE any of this occuring. The only origin we see occuring is that of Vaati and the Four Sword.

As for the symbolic things, those aren't new. Many Zelda games end with referencing 'adventures to come'. So what? The Link from TMC proves himself and gets a hat of his own. It's a homage to the fact that all the Links wear a hat. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the first one ever. After all, the Link in OoT wears a hat because it's a Kokiri thing, not because of any tradition. Other Kokiris wear similar hats.

Also, I'm insulted by your implication that if we don't 'understand' the meaning of this symbolic evidence, we are therefore idiots.

OoT still covers many more issues that symbolically represent the 'start' of the Zelda series, far more than TMC. Unless the Light Force is indeed the Triforce.

[Showsni]

I still think the original soldier turned to stone idea didn't really work because of the one eye design.
But I enjoy assuming that the people of Hyrule over time came to believe that folklore tale themselves

The LoZ variant doesn't have one eye, though, based onb the artwork:

[Fyxe]

The LoZ variant doesn't have one eye, though, based onb the artwork:

And according to the artwork, Ghinis have two eyes. It's just an example of differences between artwork in game and in the manual.

Don't ask me which one is canon when it comes to the original Zelda, but I know that the single eye look (for Armos and Ghinis) has been used in every other game with similar enemy designs.

[MikePetersSucks]

'Lawlz'? 'Aweshum'? What's up with you today, taking AOLer classes or something? o.o

I'm guilty for Lawlz, but Aweshum is a word I used before I even joined the Webternets.

[Vertiboy]

Also, I'm insulted by your implication that if we don't 'understand' the meaning of this symbolic evidence, we are therefore idiots.

I am sorry if that is what I implied. It came out wrong. The writers of Zelda are aware that their target demographic isn't the 0-4 year old range. Some of the games seem like they are aimed at younger kids (TMC), but that isn't important. The writers probably assume that they are writing for older children to teenagers that can understand indirect and subtle evidence. If they spelled everything out for us, like the very specific fake quote that I posted from TMC, then the games would seem as if they are made for children, or even worse for them, made by children. If they indirectly put evidence in place, like the "this is the year in 100 (or w/etf it was)," the implication that few monsters have plagued Hyrule between TMC and its backstory (implying that no current games could come between them without retcons and that Hyrule was virtually monsterless for 100 years), and the Minish hiding crap all over Hyrule (implying that TMC comes first. It is a chain of indirect evidence that all adds up.

Also, all of the evidence above that adds up isn't even direct. The game never comes out and says that monsters weren't present between the game and its backstory. It is heavily implied by the way that the people in Hyrule Town react to the monsters over the course of the game. Other Zelda games are like that. OoT never directly says that the Triforce hasn't left the Sacred Realm since the goddesses placed it there. It is heavily implied, but it is never actually directly stated.

OoT still covers many more issues that symbolically represent the 'start' of the Zelda series, far more than TMC. Unless the Light Force is indeed the Triforce.

OoT represents the start of the Triforce saga. Since OoT came out, we have more games that have little or no ties to the Triforce (MM, OoA, OoS, FS, FSA). The only Zelda game before that which had nearly nothing to do with the Triforce was LA, and even that could be directly connected to the Triforce saga since it featured ALttP Link (as MM can easily be connected to the Triforce saga with OoT Link).

Plus, let's say that Capcom decided that they wanted TMC to go first, but they didn't necissarily know how to do it since OoT was the start of the Zelda series. They couldn't put Ganon, the Triforce, etc. into the game without some major retcons. What else were they to do to imply that the game comes before OoT? All of the Zelda staples were 'used up' in OoT.

Edited by Vertiboy, 09 April 2007 - 03:57 PM.