147 replies to this topic

[Hero of Legend]

-- Two IWs (OoT + FSA/pre-ALttP)
-- Two naming traditions (AoL + TWW)
-- Two Ganons (OoT + FSA)
-- Two chronologies (3D + 2D)
-- Two timelines (Child + Adult)
etc. etc. etc.

Of those, I only consider the fourth to be moronic, because it is redundant. The second and fifth are factual. And the first should be "IW after OoT" which is only supported by the games.

All of these theories (except the third), looking only at the games, are equally moronic.
All of these theories, looking only at the games, are at least somewhat necessary, given certain assumptions we hold/don't hold.

This being the difference to your theory. It's not necessary for the Sleeping Zelda to be first anymore, and so it isn't.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 31 July 2007 - 03:18 PM.

[LionHarted]

It's not necessary for the Sleeping Zelda to be first anymore, and so it isn't.

... given certain assumptions.

We do not get to determine what assumptions are or are not necessary.

[Fyxe]

Doesn't matter sicne it's not in the manual now anyway.

I wish people wouldn't keep throwing this around like it means something.

Even the in-game story of Zelda II doesn't tell the whole plot, nor did most press material. The fact is that the manuals for ALL re-released Zelda games hardly touch upon the details of the plot given in the old manual. This is true for the GBA releases, the Zelda Collector's Edition and the Virtual Console. This is even the case for Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask.

This is simply due to the fact that detailed manuals are hard to find these days. The plots for games are all self-contained. The art of the in-depth manual died with the N64 and Playstation era.

[Hero of Legend]

... given certain assumptions.

We do not get to determine what assumptions are or are not necessary.

No, without any assumptions. Only by assuming that the Sleeping Zelda was first does a problem arise.

[LionHarted]

No, without any assumptions. Only by assuming that the Sleeping Zelda was first does a problem arise.

It is first, according to the original story.
You have to assume that it is actually no longer meant to be first for it not to be. And, again, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

[Hero of Legend]

It is first, according to the original story.

I don't remember the manual ever stating that it was the first story. It only says the princess was the first generation Zelda, which doesn't prove anything, and even this was removed from the GBA manual, which you seem to think changes canon (for ALttP, anyway). So no, I don't think so.

[Person]

The Sleeping Zelda had only two details changed from the NES manual: The princess is not explicitly the first Zelda, and the wizard doesn't die (sinc ethis wizard never shows up again at all it's irrelevant). Everything else is practically identical to the NES manual.

ALttP GBA regrettably cut stuff out of the manual, but the backstory is still told in game. Not much canon was changed.

[LionHarted]

The scroll is also not written by the king to the chosen one.

And taking changes in the Classic manuals as changes in fact when you don't take the same sorts of changes in the ALttP manual as retcons is hypocritical.

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 01:46 AM.

[Person]

It's not hypocritical, because the game makes up for the lack of story in the manual, it may not be word-for-word, but it's the same basic story.

[LionHarted]

It's not hypocritical, because the game makes up for the lack of story in the manual, it may not be word-for-word, but it's the same basic story.

Same basic story, with conveniently left-out details in the remake, probably to denote a lack of relevance of some of the facts. Sort of like the AoL backstory!

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 10:58 AM.

[Person]

The left out details are either filled in or implied by the in-game backstory. Since this is not done in AoL, the creators were sure to change the manual slightly to clarify the confusing points, like explicitly stating that the king wrote the scroll.

[LionHarted]

The left out details are either filled in or implied by the in-game backstory. Since this is not done in AoL, the creators were sure to change the manual slightly to clarify the confusing points, like explicitly stating that the king wrote the scroll.

They DIDN'T state that the king wrote the scroll, actually, IIRC.

[Person]

Oh, yeah. Right. My mistake. But it is one of those irrelevant details, anyway. My point about the AoL manual is that the main change was taking out the "first generation" line, because that's been contradicted by about every game in the series set before LoZ.

[LionHarted]

My point about the AoL manual is that the main change was taking out the "first generation" line, because that's been contradicted by about every game in the series set before LoZ.

And removing Ganon's role in the IW from the ALttP manual prologue is an important change, because it was about to be contradicted by TWW. Ganon being sealed in the IW could no longer be truly relevant to ALttP, because Ganon was going to escape and be killed in TWW, which released within a month or so. TP's release underlined just how irrelevant this role was, if OoT was to be the IW (which, notably, still hasn't been contradicted).

[Fyxe]

May I refer everybody (well, you two) to my previous post in this topic, which you all very much ignored?

http://forums.legend...h...st&p=351210

[LionHarted]

That's true, but when speaking of manual stories of older games that were trimmed down instead of simply reproduced exactly, you have to wonder why they disincluded what facts they did, and why they didn't just use the original manuscript.

[Fyxe]

Space.

[jmaliscious]

Space.

Yes space and clarification. The original manual in Japanese for AOL says hat the wizard was 'thought to have died', where as the English one says that when he chanted the spell ' he breathed his last'. If they have left that part out (and similar parts), it's because there is no need for them to be put in.

My point about the AoL manual is that the main change was taking out the "first generation" line, because that's been contradicted by about every game in the series set before LoZ.

That's exactly right. Arturo explained this to me in great detail, I actually believed SZ was the first, but how could that be when the TOC is hidden in the valley of Death in AOL? And I don't believe any tricksters who state that Link had the TOC already... If he already had it then he wouldn't have needed to go to the valley of death to get it. I agree he had the courage to get it all along and he proved himself to be worthy of it, but thats it.
It also doesn't make sense for her to be first because when the timeline splits, there are 2 sleeping Zeldas and in one timeline, the flood occurs and the issue of SZ is never resolved because Hyrule is drowned (if anyone responds no PH spoliers please!)

And removing Ganon's role in the IW from the ALttP manual prologue is an important change, because it was about to be contradicted by TWW. Ganon being sealed in the IW could no longer be truly relevant to ALttP, because Ganon was going to escape and be killed in TWW, which released within a month or so. TP's release underlined just how irrelevant this role was, if OoT was to be the IW (which, notably, still hasn't been contradicted).

Really? So Ganon wasn't sealed in the IW? Then how did he get into the SR prior to ALTTP? You know Ganon's wish was to conquer both LW and DW which is why he was trying to get out of the DW(SR) right? Cos that is one of the main themes of ALTTP.

I also find it funny that you argue this and don't touch on the in game intro text in ALTTPFS which replaces the words "seven wise-men" with "seven sages", implying a direct Link to OOT and going along with the original Japanese translation. Added to the fact that there were 7 sages in OOT (Including Zelda) and one of them which is clearly a child(Saria) if you look at the image of the seven sages in ALTTP's intro (where it explains about the IW) one sage is half the size of all the others. Surely It's saria and not osme drug pedalling midget disguised as a sage??!

Ganon being sealed in the IW could no longer be truly relevant to ALttP, because Ganon was going to escape and be killed in TWW

Hahaha don't tell me you're a single timeliner?
WW Ganon is presumably killed, but this has no effect on ALTTP because it's not the same timeline (or continuity). I don't know if you've played OOT, but the timeline splits and in the Child timeline which starts with OOT>MM Link's bloodline carries him all the way through to ALTTP. The Golden warrior in TP which teaches Link skills says that Link is his blood descendant, and ALTTP's MS pedestal reads "the Master sword he will then retrieve, keeping the knight's line true".

WW explicitly states that Link is not a blood descendant of the Hero of time!! The hero of time left that reality when Zelda sent him back in OOT when they're standing in the sky after Ganon is sealed in the SR. The KORL and Ganon believe him to be a reincarnation of the hero of time, but he isn't a blood descendant.

Sorry, two different timelines, chum...... P

Edited by jmaliscious, 23 August 2007 - 10:20 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Surely It's saria and not osme drug pedalling midget disguised as a sage??!

Because God forbid Hyrule has any midgets and there's even a chance of one of them being a Sage. God, no.

[jmaliscious]

Surely It's saria and not osme drug pedalling midget disguised as a sage??!

Because God forbid Hyrule has any midgets and there's even a chance of one of them being a Sage. God, no.

Well which is it more likley to be? Saria? or a midget?
You know maybe it is a Random midget, but if it is I'd like to know where thats implied.
ALTTP's events still refer to OOT as the IW in my opinion. You and others may not like that (what ever your stance is on that) because of TP or whatever but we're presented with 7 sages in ALTTP and 7 in OOT, one being significantly shorter than the rest in both.. Doesn't appear to be purely randomness to me.

[LionHarted]

Really? So Ganon wasn't sealed in the IW? Then how did he get into the SR prior to ALTTP? You know Ganon's wish was to conquer both LW and DW which is why he was trying to get out of the DW(SR) right? Cos that is one of the main themes of ALTTP.

He (and the Sacred Realm) was sealed in the IW (OoT).
He escaped the seal (TWW).
His reincarnation rediscovered the Sacred Realm, but couldn't figure out how to return to the Light World (because it was sealed; pre-ALttP).

WW Ganon is presumably killed, but this has no effect on ALTTP because it's not the same timeline (or continuity).

lol opinion.

WW explicitly states that Link is not a blood descendant of the Hero of time!!

Right.

But he can still wield the Master Sword, so he has to

1) Be worthy of the title;
2) Be related to the Knights of Hyrule

Edited by LionHarted, 25 August 2007 - 05:44 AM.

[jmaliscious]

His reincarnation rediscovered the Sacred Realm, but couldn't figure out how to return to the Light World (because it was sealed; pre-ALttP).

When is this ever mentioned in any game?

lol opinion.

Thats an opinion in itself. I hope the irony is not lost on you.

Link left the adult OOT realm. WW is based after he left and there was no Hero which is why the flood happened. The creators have said this and WW's intro tells you flat out. Deal with it.

Right.

But he can still wield the Master Sword, so he has to

1) Be worthy of the title;
2) Be related to the Knights of Hyrule

There was no Link in this timeline = great flood happened.
After a while a soul with the essence of the Hero came along who the gods chose and tested (gods tower).
Japanese have some kind fo belief where souls can split and exist in two bodies. the game was made by japanese people, so I don't think thats more far-fetched than destroying the in-game canon and creator's comments.
If there was a Hero who was related to OOT Link, then why didn't he show up to defeat Ganon? Cos there was no hero.

[LionHarted]

When is this ever mentioned in any game?

Cited basicially verbatim from ALttP (throwing in the "reincarnation" bit for consistency with actual possibilities).

Thats an opinion in itself.

To point out that something is not established fact is typically not opinionated. To use an opinion as an established fact, especially as support for an argument, is just bad debating.

Link left the adult OOT realm. WW is based after he left and there was no Hero which is why the flood happened.

Notice that I didn't argue against this. I argued against the fact that you said "ALttP is NOT in the same timeline."

There was no Link in this timeline = great flood happened.

TWW Link = Link in this timeline.

If there was a Hero who was related to OOT Link, then why didn't he show up to defeat Ganon?

Somebody used the Master Sword as a seal on Hyrule.

[MikePetersSucks]

Well which is it more likley to be? Saria? or a midget?

Depends if you hold OOT to be the Imprisoning War or not.

You know maybe it is a Random midget, but if it is I'd like to know where thats implied.

Considering the Midget existed before Saria did, I'll let creator intent kick in. I doubt they were thinking, "Say, in like 5 years or so, when we make a prequel to this, that midget should be a fairy girl who never grows up."

ALTTP's events still refer to OOT as the IW in my opinion. You and others may not like that (what ever your stance is on that) because of TP or whatever but we're presented with 7 sages in ALTTP and 7 in OOT, one being significantly shorter than the rest in both.. Doesn't appear to be purely randomness to me.

Coincidences happen. What're the odds, for example, that every Link and Zelda have the same name, are in the same bloodline, possibly have the same souls, and have almost identical physical features and personality traits?

Somebody used the Master Sword as a seal on Hyrule.

Like....uh....the Goddesses?

[CID Farwin]

Like....uh....the Goddesses?

Oh, yes. God did it. The ultimate wizard.

What's all this about a Midget? He's just in the back...
*watches ALttP intro*
Oh...

Considering the Midget existed before Saria did, I'll let creator intent kick in. I doubt they were thinking, "Say, in like 5 years or so, when we make a prequel to this, that midget should be a fairy girl who never grows up."

Try, "So, we're making the Imprisoning war; there's this one sage that looks like a midget."
"Hm, we've got a race of children; Let's have it be one of them. Wait, Sariah would work perfectly."
or something to that extent. The question is WHY the sage in question is so small; maybe they were thinking of Yoda.

[Fyxe]

 Seven_Sages.png   6.44K   15 downloads

Can't a person kneel or sit without being accused of being a midget?

He's not a midget or a child, as you can see his proportions are identical to the other sages. They merely made him kneel down to make the picture less boring. Having a set of identical figures is a bit dull and makes it look a lazy, so they made one kneel. Big deal. It's aesthetic, nothing more.

If it's a reference to anything, it's a reference to the tiny sage who protects the Triforce of Courage in Zelda II, not a reference to a character yet to be conceived of.

Edited by Fyxe, 25 August 2007 - 06:17 PM.

[SOAP]

The "midget" Sage can't be Saria for the fact there's no giant sage to be Darunia. I don't think there was planning, even retroactive planning to make saria correlate to "midget" sage. The guy's just knelling. That's it.

[Chaltab]

He's not a midget or a child, as you can see his proportions are identical to the other sages. They merely made him kneel down to make the picture less boring.

'Him'? All the sages involved in the Seal War were female except Darunia and Raoru. Not that I think the smallness of that sage is relevant; they all look the same despite being mostly different races. Like most things about the ALTTP backstory, the events have been obscured by the mists of time.

Edited by Chaltab, 12 November 2007 - 12:29 AM.