215 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

In which case they wouldn't try to kill him by themselves, would they? Your point is becoming self-defeating. o.o

EXCEPT THEY ADMIT TO THIS BEING THEIR FOLLY.

THEY "OVERESTIMATED THEIR ABILITIES AS SAGES".

As for your second point; the "ancient sages" forged the Master Sword (reestablished by TP), built the Temple of Time (referenced in TP), and have Rauru as one of their members (duh). Any additional roles do not detract from this.

And if you don't split, you must assume that Ganondorf escaped somehow and was captured anyway.

Why do I have to assume he escaped?

Edited by LionHarted, 19 November 2007 - 11:01 AM.

[Fyxe]

In which case they wouldn't try to kill him by themselves, would they? Your point is becoming self-defeating. o.o

EXCEPT THEY ADMIT TO THIS BEING THEIR FOLLY.

THEY "OVERESTIMATED THEIR ABILITIES AS SAGES".

THEY ADMIT THEY WERE UNPREPARED, THEY DID NOT ADMIT TO BEING COMPLETE MORONS OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. LOOK, I CAN TALK IN ALL CAPS TOO, HOW CLEVER.

As for the whole additional roles thing, who says the Sages in TP retain the same role that they did in OoT anyway? Do the Maidens in FSA have the same role as those in ALttP? No, although it's similar.

Wow, the Temple of Time is referenced in TP, thanks for telling me, I would never have noticed. Yet the Sages don't go anywhere near it. Some protecting, huh? Maybe protecting the Master Sword and the Temple of Time is a forgotten role since it no longer seems to open the gateway to the Sacred Realm.

Edited by Arturo, 19 November 2007 - 01:01 PM.
I had to do it. I had to make the statement in bolds. :P

[LionHarted]

No; they were more than simply unprepared; they say they overestimated their abilities altogether.

There's a difference between careless and being unprepared.

Edited by LionHarted, 19 November 2007 - 12:37 PM.

[Fyxe]

And there's a difference between both and not knowing things a Sage should probably know by the job description of 'wise man'.

[LionHarted]

And there's a difference between both and not knowing things a Sage should probably know by the job description of 'wise man'.

"Sage" is a title applied to the protectors of Hyrule.

The wisdom associated with the title ought not be associated with carelessness to any degree, but apparently it's canon that it was.

[Fyxe]

"Sage" is a title applied to the protectors of Hyrule.

The wisdom associated with the title ought not be associated with carelessness to any degree, but apparently it's canon that it was.

Wuzzahwha? No, you've lost me now. Bleh.

[Arturo]

And there's a difference between both and not knowing things a Sage should probably know by the job description of 'wise man'.

"Sage" is a title applied to the protectors of Hyrule.

The wisdom associated with the title ought not be associated with carelessness to any degree, but apparently it's canon that it was.

May I mention that not all protectors of Hyrule are Sages? The "Sages" in TWW were called Priests in Japanese, as far as I know.

[MikePetersSucks]

The Sages aren't all-knowing. They're Sages, not Prophets or Gods.

There, now shut up.

[Jumbie]

May I mention that not all protectors of Hyrule are Sages? The "Sages" in TWW were called Priests in Japanese, as far as I know.

No, in TWW they're sages as well, the Zelda Box book says so.

[Raien]

Thus Link's first adventure ended.
But hereafter, many kinds of occurences will perhaps come to Link and Zelda in Hyrule.
So, the story goes on.
As long as there is the Force's guidance...

I highlighted "first" because it potentially suggests that TMC is the first Zelda game in the timeline.
I then highlighted "perhaps" because it potentially suggests that the later adventures haven't been developed yet, which further suggests that this is only referring to TMC's incarnation of Link, not subsequent incarnations. This would discount the previous suggestion that TMC is the first Zelda game in the timeline.

Edited by jhurvid, 14 January 2008 - 08:45 PM.

[Jumbie]

Correct the wrong passages, Jumbie...

There are none

I highlighted "first" because it potentially suggests that TMC is the first Zelda game in the timeline.

That's definitely so. "Hajimete" literally means "for the first time".
And think about it... Let's assume the developers really intended TMC to be the very first game, and were searching for a way to subtly state that, but for dramatical reasons only at the very end - then which other way, than this one, do you think they could have used? None, this wording is exactly the way they were able to show that TMC was the first adventure of the ever reincarnating Link and Zelda.

I then highlighted "perhaps" because it potentially suggests that the later adventures haven't been developed yet, which further suggests that this is only referring to TMC's incarnation of Link, not subsequent incarnations. This would discount the previous suggestion that TMC is the first Zelda game in the timeline.

"Deshou" is a word that adds potentiality to a statement. It can mean "I hope", "I guess", but since first person feels odd in this sentence, I'd go with "presumably". I don't say that "perhaps" is wrong. I think it's merely the game's narrator who has to "guess" as he can't predict events further on in the timeline.

We players, by contrast, are perfectly aware of those "many kinds of occurrences" (namely the previously released Zelda games), and I'm sure the script writer expected us to therefore smirk to ourselves reading that hint. I sure did, and it puzzles me that so many people didn't catch that...

In connection with the "Link's first adventure" line, this means that the entirety of pre-2005 Zelda games is included in those "occurrences".

[Prime Blue]

The clues for its placement before OoT are definitely there.

To me the game felt like telling the whole story how subsequent Links got their hats as part of their armor.

[MikePetersSucks]

And yet TMC Link is wearing green before OOT, when OOT very clearly illustrates the origins of the entire wardrobe, hat and all, via the Kokiri?

No, screw that. I'm not ignoring all the other conflicting evidence for a timeline placement over a goddamned hat.

[LionHarted]

That's definitely so. "Hajimete" literally means "for the first time".
And think about it... Let's assume the developers really intended TMC to be the very first game, and were searching for a way to subtly state that, but for dramatical reasons only at the very end - then which other way, than this one, do you think they could have used? None, this wording is exactly the way they were able to show that TMC was the first adventure of the ever reincarnating Link and Zelda.

Considering the developers of TMC weren't even sure themselves how the game related to the storyline (see the Capcom interview), and appear to have had the intention not to link the FS games to the Ganon storyline (a Capcom interview, not sure which one) I am quite confident that TMC's attempted timeline placement do not take into account EAD's actual moves to bridge the FS games with the other main games, and is therefore about as meaningful as dirt.

[Raien]

Considering the developers of TMC weren't even sure themselves how the game related to the storyline (see the Capcom interview)...

It was actually the "golden light" legend that they said they didn't know how it related to the Triforce legend. It's entirely possible that they weren't actually sure of what the Light Force was, and that EAD identified it as "life force" when they developed PH.

Golden light is a very, very old legend of Hyrule and nobody knows how it relates to the Triforce legend. It is still a big mystery whether it has some relationship with the Triforce, which is the most important element in the Legend of Zelda series.

...and appear to have had the intention not to link the FS games to the Ganon storyline (a Capcom interview, not sure which one).

It was the same interview, If I recall correctly.

I am quite confident that TMC's attempted timeline placement do not take into account EAD's actual moves to bridge the FS games with the other main games, and is therefore about as meaningful as dirt.

Assuming that EAD intended to bridge the games, instead of just make references to ALTTP to appease the veteran fans (as Aonuma said they did).

[LionHarted]

It was actually the "golden light" legend that they said they didn't know how it related to the Triforce legend. It's entirely possible that they weren't actually sure of what the Light Force was, and that EAD identified it as "life force" when they developed PH.

Right.

Consider the question to which that answer responded.

Assuming that EAD intended to bridge the games, instead of just make references to ALTTP to appease the veteran fans (as Aonuma said they did).

Aonuma said that the similarities might have been related to the staff's relationship to ALttP, not anything along the lines of what you're suggesting.

Any quotes regarding the usage of elements from prior games:

BB: What?s your favorite part about Legend Of Zelda: The Four Swords Adventures?

EA: Actually, the individual director of this game Toshiaki Suzuki, is a big fan of the Zelda series. So one thing that he did with this game that I really want to praise him for and the work that he?s done on it, was he went back and looked at a lot of past Zelda games, and he took elements almost from each game. So if you?re playing through, and if the only Zelda game that you played was The Wind Waker, you?ll look at that and say that this is very familiar to The Wind Waker. Or for people that know Ocarina very well, might be able to pick up little hints from Ocarina. Obviously, it?s not like we have the same exact same puzzles in these games, but kind of puzzles that evoke some of the same ideas and will give people a sense of familiarity and at the same time getting something new. He did a really good job with it and it?s almost kind of a typical theme for the Zelda game ? each new Zelda game has a lot of elements of past Zelda games in it, and he did a really good job of putting all the elements in this one?

[other interview pending]

[Raien]

Consider the question to which that answer responded.

You said, "Capcom weren't sure of how the game related to other games", and there is no evidence of that.

Aonuma said that the similarities might have been related to the staff's relationship to ALttP, not anything along the lines of what you're suggesting.

Right, similarities between FSA and ALTTP could be the result of the staff's relationship to ALTTP, as well as the director's inclusion of element of various previous Zelda games. So to say "EAD bridged FSA to ALTTP" is still quite speculative given that the reasons for the similarities with ALTTP are speculative.

[LionHarted]

You said, "Capcom weren't sure of how the game related to other games", and there is no evidence of that.

The only indication Capcom gives of TMC's relationship to other games is that they don't know what it is (the Light Force quote), or that they didn't intend for there to be one (the Ganon storyline quote).

Right, similarities between FSA and ALTTP could be the result of the staff's relationship to ALTTP, as well as the director's inclusion of element of various previous Zelda games. So to say "EAD bridged FSA to ALTTP" is still quite speculative given that the reasons for the similarities with ALTTP are speculative.

Reasons for bridging FSA to ALttP might have just as much to do with the staff's relationship to ALttP, though. They're not magically exclusive... unless they are.

[Raien]

The only indication Capcom gives of TMC's relationship to other games is that they don't know what it is (the Light Force quote), or that they didn't intend for there to be one (the Ganon storyline quote).

Not knowing how the Light Force relates to the Triforce has no bearing on whether the game had an intended placement in the timeline.
Deciding not to include Ganon has no bearing on whether the game had an intended placement in the timeline (same as LA and MM).

Reasons for bridging FSA to ALttP might have just as much to do with the staff's relationship to ALttP, though. They're not magically exclusive... unless they are.

Until we have evidence that connects FSA's art style to its story, any information pertaining to its art style says nothing about its story.

[LionHarted]

Not knowing how the Light Force relates to the Triforce has no bearing on whether the game had an intended placement in the timeline.
Deciding not to include Ganon has no bearing on whether the game had an intended placement in the timeline (same as LA and MM).

1) Not knowing how the game relates to the main legends of the series definitely suggests a lack of a concrete idea of how it fits as opposed to a positive placement. I'm not saying they have to know where the Light Force story fits in relation to the Triforce; I'm saying that when the only comments developers make on the storyline's relation to the timeline is "we don't know" or "it's not related" that you can't claim that they do have an intended place, much less what that place is.
2) I'm pretty sure the announcement was that the FS series as a whole was intended not to be related at all to the Ganon story, not just that the internal storyline didn't feature him. LA and MM are both related to the Ganon story in that they feature heroes from Ganon stories.

Until we have evidence that connects FSA's art style to its story, any information pertaining to its art style says nothing about its story.

It's not the art style. It's the storyline continuity (Kakariko thieves, desecration of the Desert Temple, creation of the northwest Lost Woods, etc.).

[Raien]

1) Not knowing how the game relates to the main legends of the series definitely suggests a lack of a concrete idea of how it fits as opposed to a positive placement. I'm not saying they have to know where the Light Force story fits in relation to the Triforce; I'm saying that when the only comments developers make on the storyline's relation to the timeline is "we don't know" or "it's not related" that you can't claim that they do have an intended place, much less what that place is.

The Light Force =/= TMC

Whatever ideas that Capcom had about the Light Force, or whether those ideas ever came to fruition, there is nothing there that comments on an intended placement for TMC in the timeline. Although you can say, "I have no proof", I am also telling you that you have no proof. As far as this point is concerned, its a stalemate and serves no argument for or against.

2) I'm pretty sure the announcement was that the FS series as a whole was intended not to be related at all to the Ganon story, not just that the internal storyline didn't feature him. LA and MM are both related to the Ganon story in that they feature heroes from Ganon stories.

Correct, which means that Capcom could place TMC before the very first appearance of Ganon in OoT, or after his death in TP and TWW, or after his later incarnation's death in LoZ. None of these placements would have to relate to Ganon. There's no evidence that Ganon's appearance in FSA retconned any intended placement for TMC by Capcom.

It's not the art style. It's the storyline continuity (Kakariko thieves, desecration of the Desert Temple, creation of the northwest Lost Woods, etc.).

All the points you referenced tell us that FSA takes place before ALTTP, not that it directly bridges with ALTTP.

[LionHarted]

The Light Force =/= TMC

The only existing developer quotes about TMC stating that they don't know what certain of its constituent story elements have to do with the timeline =/= the developers having a place for TMC in the timeline.

Whatever ideas that Capcom had about the Light Force, or whether those ideas ever came to fruition, there is nothing there that comments on an intended placement for TMC in the timeline.

Bingo.

Correct, which means that Capcom could place TMC before the very first appearance of Ganon in OoT, or after his death in TP and TWW, or after his later incarnation's death in LoZ.

Newflash: no quote exists placing them anywhere.
The only quotes that exist state lacks of connection.

All the points you referenced tell us that FSA takes place before ALTTP, not that it directly bridges with ALTTP.

The word "directly" is inserted by you.

[Jumbie]

Funny that you're discussing interviews, when the bit of information given yesterday is actually developer intention expressed through in-game text...
I suggest you better head over to the other day's TMC placement thread, it's not too late to reanimate it.

[Raien]

The only existing developer quotes about TMC stating that they don't know what certain of its constituent story elements have to do with the timeline =/= the developers having a place for TMC in the timeline.

There is no evidence in the interview that Capcom had an intended placement for TMC in the timeline.
There is no evidence in the interview that Capcom did not have an intended placement for TMC in the timeline.
At no point in the interview did Capcom relate TMC to the timeline.

The Light Force is not a representation of TMC. I'm not going to debate this line of argument any longer because the evidence makes no inference for or against.

The word "directly" is inserted by you.

I would have assumed that's what you meant by the word "bridged". To bridge something is to make a direct connection.

Funny that you're discussing interviews, when the bit of information given yesterday is actually developer intention expressed through in-game text...
I suggest you better head over to the other day's TMC placement thread, it's not too late to reanimate it.

Yeah, it's typical Lex trying to argue the consensus. I'm at least done with debating the interview because it has shown not to lead us to any conclusions to the contrary with the in-game text.

Edited by jhurvid, 16 January 2008 - 07:15 PM.

[Raien]

Thanks to a proper translation, we now have this quote from the end of TMC.

Thus Link's first adventure ended.
But hereafter, many kinds of occurences will perhaps come to Link and Zelda in Hyrule.
So, the story goes on.
As long as there is the Force's guidance...

But there is one question that I want to ask. Is it more likely that this passage refers to the specific incarnation of Link and Zelda seen in TMC, or is it referring to every incarnation of Link and Zelda throughout the timeline? Your thoughts please. Any chance of a conclusive answer?

[Fyxe]

Considering that most gamers aren't aware of an ongoing 'timeline', it's almost certainly referring to that specific Zelda and Link. It makes more sense within the internal narrative. Besides, even if that Link did go on to have other adventures... None of the other Links in the other games ARE that Link anyway. Except maybe the Four Swords games, anyway.

[LionHarted]

Funny that you're discussing interviews, when the bit of information given yesterday is actually developer intention expressed through in-game text...

If Capcom's only expressions of TMC's relation to the series in developer interviews is "we don't know how its legend relates to the Triforce (i.e., to the starting point of the series legend)," or "it's not connected to the Ganon story (to the other games not part of the FS saga)" then I'd argue that the in-game text has nothing to do with TMC's relation to the series.

Until we're told otherwise, anyway.

Since FSA's considerably less vague about how it references its timeline placement (i.e., making direct references to various backstories of ALttP), and obviously goes against what Capcom had planned for the FS games (it involves Ganon) I would consider FSA a Drumpf of anything Capcom planned in TMC anyway.

I would have assumed that's what you meant by the word "bridged". To bridge something is to make a direct connection.

To bridge something is to connect it to something where once was a gap.

I think the storyline references to ALttP make it very difficult to say that it goes anywhere but immediately before ALttP (as far as the currently-release games go).

Edited by LionHarted, 16 January 2008 - 08:27 PM.

[Jumbie]

But there is one question that I want to ask. Is it more likely that this passage refers to the specific incarnation of Link and Zelda seen in TMC, or is it referring to every incarnation of Link and Zelda throughout the timeline? Your thoughts please. Any chance of a conclusive answer?

I believe that the answer can easily be found if we think about the two possible purposes of this quote:
1. The developers wished to tell players that there potentially might be a sequel to TMC featuring the same Link.
2. The developers wished to hint at players that this is chronologically the first Zelda game.

If you say it refers to the TMC Link and Zelda alone, then you need to explain for what reason the game should mention that this Link might *perhaps* have other adventures to do. It's not like players would've been prone to assume TMC Link was gonna stop roaming Hyrule after the game's end if they didn't include that quote as an all-clear signal. Because that'd be very silly, no?

Moreover, no hints at potential sequels were made at the endings of LoZ, ALttP, OoT, and FS, all of which were later decided to get a sequel. That's because the devs don't usually announce upcoming Zelda sequels in Banjo-Kazooie fashion.

Therefore when the ending text says that Link and Zelda may encounter other adventures in Hyrule, for as long as the Force guides them, it must be referring to all their future incarnations.
Or... are we to assume that upon the deaths of TMC's Link and Zelda, the ongoing story will suddenly end and the guidance of the Force will cease?

Besides, even if that Link did go on to have other adventures... None of the other Links in the other games ARE that Link anyway. Except maybe the Four Swords games, anyway.

Ever since OoT's release, Nintendo have been speaking about Link in a way as if all his incarnations are the same person. Whether or not this is true plays no role here. Important is that TMC's ending quote is just one more of the many instances where the entirety of Links is talked about as if they are one person.

[Jumbie]

Since FSA's considerably less vague about how it references its timeline placement (i.e., making direct references to various backstories of ALttP), and obviously goes against what Capcom had planned for the FS games (it involves Ganon) I would consider FSA a Drumpf of anything Capcom planned in TMC anyway.

I don't understand - FSA was released well before TMC, so what relevance does FSA have in the issue of TMC's internal hints at its placement? Also, FSA is chronologically as far away from TMC as TP is from OoT (at least!).

[Raien]

I don't understand - FSA was released well before TMC, so what relevance does FSA have in the issue of TMC's internal hints at its placement? Also, FSA is chronologically as far away from TMC as TP is from OoT (at least!).

Good point. I never liked splitting the Four Swords trilogy by placing games in-between, but now it looks to be the most suitable solution.