[LionHarted]

jhurvid, on Apr 9 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

We both discussed it and ended with the conclusion that the GBA version holds the exact same meanings as the SNES game, with or without the original manual.

I love how people imagine that I reach conclusions that I never reached.

We agreed to disagree, and you argue as though I conceded.

[Mgoblue201]

I missed that post before.

Unfortunately there are gaps here. "Because the creation is mentioned, it therefore is linked to the Seal War," of course ignoring that the obvious link is the Triforce itself. It was meant to give an entire history of Hyrule from creation to LTTP. There is no logic to your statement. There are no dates given. There is no statement of fact. Thematically they are secondary pieces held in parallel with a dozen other secondary pieces. In fact, what is more likely? That they would constrain themselves based on this completely unnecessary reason or, when they actually created two timelines in order to fit more games in, do what is most common of Nintendo to do? It even goes against what the developers would do. LTTP also implies heavily that Ganon is stuck in the Dark World for the entire duration leading up to the beginning of the game just as it implies that nothing really happens between creation and the Seal War. These are two equal pieces of information, and they were both necessary to repeal later on. Future games happen, and since no real dates and facts are given here, they reserve the right to mold the timeline however they wish. In fact, the developers have said many times that there are more ancient legends.

But your arguments are all over the place. Thinking that the proximity matters is a fan invention. Or do you argue otherwise? Because arguing about the rerelease booklet is certainly arguing that something was meant by it. Either way, the booklet doesn't mean much. It's a two page story told in huge text. The one thing that we can assume about this is that they only meant to give a barebones account, one that certainly does not add new information or change anything. I also assume that the game itself still features all of the relevant information from the original. If you're arguing out of developer intention, then there are better explanations. If you are arguing out of fan invention, then speaking as if there is some divine mandate here is out of the question.

Our entire view of LTTP's backstory must change anyway as more and more games are added. In fact, they were intending to update the entire backstory, so the possibilities aren't necessarily limited. The only thing that is limiting is how one can extrapolate proof from evidence. If one has a different perspective, then one will reach a different conclusion. But everything must be told with logic. Unfortunately there are several leaps within your post that assume that they are correct or assume without proof. It is better to start from the beginning and tell me why it must be (and actually tell me what this theory is).

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 9 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

We agreed to disagree, and you argue as though I conceded.

I remember agreeing to stop debating because there was nothing left to argue, not because you had any room to continue your line of argument. I proved that Ganon was connected to the Imprisoning War through the Dark World, you had no response to that, and thus the debate ended. But the fact that you proved the Imprisoning War was connected to the creation of Hyrule only served to prove that nothing could be derived from the GBA game that could not be derived from the SNES game. The SNES manual is inconsequential to the general story.

[LionHarted]

jhurvid, on Apr 9 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

I remember agreeing to stop debating because there was nothing left to argue, not because you had any room to continue your line of argument. I proved that Ganon was connected to the Imprisoning War through the Dark World, you had no response to that, and thus the debate ended. But the fact that you proved the Imprisoning War was connected to the creation of Hyrule only served to prove that nothing could be derived from the GBA game that could not be derived from the SNES game. The SNES manual is inconsequential to the general story.

Either the IW is not connected to the creation, or Ganon is not connected to the IW. Both of these require that we go against a fact.

Which fact we go against is purely personal preference. I concede to creator quotes.

Therefore, there is no more reason to argue, since neither of us can prove anything else.

Mgoblue said:

It was meant to give an entire history of Hyrule from creation to LTTP. There is no logic to your statement. There are no dates given. There is no statement of fact.

The game tells us the creation story, then, when subsequently setting up the context for the IW, tells us the Triforce "still rested" in the Sacred Realm.

This post has been edited by LionHarted: 09 April 2008 - 06:12 PM

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 10 2008, 12:10 AM, said:

Either the IW is not connected to the creation, or Ganon is not connected to the IW. Both of these require that we go against a fact.

If there was no GBA remake of ALTTP, this same point can be said of the SNES game. My question to you is why are you referring to discrepancies between the SNES and GBA versions of ALTTP when it has been proven the story has not changed?

I am happy if you choose to connect Ganon to the creation story, but that is by no means related to your argument that the GBA remake changes any meanings present in the SNES game. Ganon IS actively connected to the Imprisoning War in the GBA remake, whether you believe this point to be retconned or not.

This post has been edited by jhurvid: 09 April 2008 - 08:09 PM

[Hero of Legend]

Mgoblue201 said:

But shouldn't people at least accept the disconnection of OOT from the Seal War? There are no facts being changed. The context simply shifts.

I disagree. Intentions were changed: OoT is no longer the Seal War. Facts were changed, both by OoT itself, its sequels, and now your postulations. It is a fact the story of OoT was written with the intent of acting out the Seal War, just as it is a fact that LA’s manual was written with the intent of detailing the events following ALttP. These cases are not different, and whether OoT remains as the first game in the timeline or if you think to have found any means of justification for its change of purpose does not matter: to me, it’s all irrelevant.

Quote

There is no precedence for this within the Zelda timeline. OOT isn't even so bold. Never before have the games simply been shifted around. Parallel universes have been added. The timeline has been filled in. But so far there has been no proof that things have changed so drastically. Sequels, even a psuedo sequel like LA, have never been ripped apart from each other and placed somewhere else.

Let me tell you, I do not care much for original intent, nor do I consider Nintendo’s past actions an important part of my theorizing, least of all when dealing with retcons. Not much of the Zelda mythos has been openly retconned, but not much of it remains as it originally was either.

Quote

I think we can all agree that LTTP was the only thing the manual could have been referring to at the time, so I'll spare us that argument. Reinterpreting it is using unclear language that has a clear intention against people who couldn't see future outcomes. It's like going back in time and using a gun to kill a man with a knife. There either is a retcon or there isn't. Either the manual counts and it refers to LTTP, or the manual doesn't count and it can't be used.

It’s either that, or the developers knew that the manual, as well as the game itself was ambiguous and lent itself well to a retcon, so they worked it into a story that followed naturally from the ending scene. Who knows (who cares?) why they did it? I know I think it works better, and I’m sure they do too. At any rate, the manual is still relevant: it simply references another game - much like ALttP's old manual.

Quote

In other words, when two pieces of information are on equal planes, then the last piece of information we recieved must be taken as the more accurate. If there is any doubt in that piece of information, then there must be equal doubt in how we apply that. A recent but ambiguous piece of information cannot just automatically supercede something that was pretty much told to us.

A new game cannot change what was said in an old manual; remakes aside, only a press release, interview or other sort of confirmation from Nintendo can do that. But the new game can adhere to that the story of the old manual. The fact that the Oracles work just as well - better, in fact - than ALttP, and the implications that follow from this matters more to me than your personal judgements, reasonable as they may be.

Quote

At least with OOT they retconned to begin with, screwing up LTTP's story. A retcon back is understandable. And everybody can look at the games afterward and clearly see the pattern. I see absolutely no reason to touch the equlibrium between LTTP and LA and confuse things so badly.

How about the idea that Nintendo INTENDED OoT to 1) split the timeline (since a split logically follows from and is implied by the ending) and 2) have a number of sequels that eventually led into ALttP (because that would only make sense*)? I see nothing wrong with this belief. Maybe you would argue that such unfounded speculation is unwarranted? Well, that’s a matter of personal opinion. Just as your assumption that Nintendo cares anything about the placement and relations of old (pre-OoT) games.

*And also appears to be precisely what is happening.

[Raien]

It's been more or less confirmed that the split timeline was only decided on around TWW.

[Hero of Legend]

Well, it was only a hypothetical example anyway; though I doubt the adult timeline was supposed to self-destruct after the ending or something...

Also, I guess I should clarify that when I say "I believe this and this about LA and the Oracles" I mean I believe that was the intent of the ending of the Oracles. I don't make any claims about the timeline. In fact, my timeline is pretty much this:

Child: OoT-MM-TP
Adult: OoT-TWW-PH
Four Swords: TMC-FS-FSA

And that's it. The rest I know nothing about, and will therefore say nothing about.

[Mgoblue201]

No amount of reasoning changes the fact that the manual quotes originally referred to LTTP. That they could have been changed means nothing to the argument. My point is that one fact must override another fact. You originally argued that extrapolation overrode fact because it is more recent. You are now arguing that both an extrapolation and unfounded assumption override fact. No matter how many good guesses you have, we still are not completely certain of the ending to the Oracles. We are certain of what was meant by LA. The boat itself has no special meaning and does not illuminate LA anymore. It is just a boat. A boat that perhaps had specific intentions, but we do not know that. So it cannot be a better lead in unless we know that intention (for instance, the hat thing in TMC is also hinted at from within the game and in developer interviews...otherwise it is just a hat). Of course one can still believe whatever one wishes. It is a theory that is very possible. But fact exists independent of possibility. One intention can be proved. One cannot. If something is easy, then I can believe it. But if the developers did change it, then they made it hard and jumped through a series of crazy hoops. That does not rise above fact for me unless there are concrete reasons. Give me more reasons why fact should be overriden and the choice becomes more obvious. One does not have to care for original intention, but original intention might also mean present intention. It has to be proven that intention has changed.

LionHarted, on Apr 9 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

The game tells us the creation story, then, when subsequently setting up the context for the IW, tells us the Triforce "still rested" in the Sacred Realm.

That is different. You implied before that they had a special symbiotic relationship. As it is, there are many theories that could still easily account for that line depending on what one believes. But like I said, I think that Nintendo can repeal anything they want. All I ask for is consistancy and logic. If you believe certain things, then you should say what they are.

[LionHarted]

jhurvid, on Apr 9 2008, 05:16 PM, said:

If there was no GBA remake of ALTTP, this same point can be said of the SNES game. My question to you is why are you referring to discrepancies between the SNES and GBA versions of ALTTP when it has been proven the story has not changed?

Because it would seem that the Imprisoning War story itself (i.e., the manual story) favours one fact over the other. Obviously the internal plot has not changed substantially, since it is a rerelease, not a remake.

Since your argument is that ALttP's relationship to the creation has been retconned, I have to contend that it is more evident that it has been upheld than it is evident that Ganon's direct involvement in the events leading up to the sages' seal has been upheld. Since both of these conditions seem to be present, neither of us can really make any claims as to the nature of the retcon, only that one must have taken place. That is why I turn to the manual story as a source for what we are actually meant to know about the war itself.

Your point that Ganon is obviously responsible for the Dark World threatening the Light World in ALttP is valid, but I would also contend that if death eliminates the dark effects on the realm, as the Triforce claims, then by the lifetime of ALttP Ganon it should already have been restored for him to corrupt yet again. Obviously a second corruption is not implied by the text, but, then again, if the IW is not meant to occupy the spot in the timeline occupied by OoT, there's no reason to refer to the creation, as it's really rather irrelevant to ALttP, since the individual emblems of the Triforce are never referenced in the course of the game.

This post has been edited by LionHarted: 10 April 2008 - 03:23 AM

[Hero of Legend]

Mgoblue201 said:

No amount of reasoning changes the fact that the manual quotes originally referred to LTTP. That they could have been changed means nothing to the argument.

And the fact that it is speculation that the manual was changed means nothing to my argument. My arguments rests not on the thesis that Nintendo chose to change LA's placement, but, like you said, on the fact that the Oracles appear to do so. Whether you consider that reason to be valid in an argument, I could not care less about; at any rate you are not fair in your judgment, nor do you consider all the evidence - presumably due to your expressed personal bias in this matter. Like I said, I do not consider anything but the latest information to be relevant in an argument, and if am led to I believe something has changed, I accept that. Of course I weight the new info against the old - "what reason is there to believe this?" But that I have already done, and whatever you think of my conclusions about the Oracles' ending does not impede the argument as such. Suffice to say, this is not a flaw in reasoning on my part, it is simply a different method of reasoning. You can't beat me if I don't play by your rules, and unfortunately for you, there is no reason for me to adhere to your system.

This post has been edited by Hero of Legend: 10 April 2008 - 01:08 PM

[Impossible]

How do the Oracles connect to LA "better" than ALttP does? If they don't, then I don't see how you can say that there's any real advantage to the placement. The boat thing doesn't work any better, because LA explains perfectly why Link is on a boat at the start of the game. He's going back to Hyrule after setting off on a journey, which began shortly after he saved Hyrule. I don't think your theory is impossible, but to suggest that it's somehow better than connecting ALttP to its rightful, canonical sequel (and LA to its rightful prequel) is the one thing you said that I really take issue with. I mean, there ARE contradictions, like Link's mysteriously vanishing Triforce mark, him not having saved Hyrule, or the things in LA that are based on the dreams and nightmares of ALttP's Link. There aren't contradictions between ALttP and LA, I don't see how you could claim any exist when that was the canonical placement for at LEAST eight years. If only one theory has contradictions and things that need to be disregarded, it's not really the better one. It's just a possibility that's impossible to completely disprove.

Before the obvious response to one thing there comes up again, Oracle Link did not fight Agahnim just because there was a similar boss to him. Every damn Zelda game has a boss like that, but the opponent in LA was specifically based on Agahnim. He and Ganon are two of Link's most prominent nightmares, some random mini-boss would not be.

This post has been edited by Impossible: 10 April 2008 - 07:59 AM

[Hero of Legend]

Well, the fact that the Oracles re-used pretty much everything from LA could (and likely did) work both ways. It explains why Link is dreaming about a lot of these things, and why the developers would be inclined to reference LA in the ending; because, again, that is a reference, no doubt about it. They could have left it out, but they didn't. That's significant, and that's what I'm basing my theory on. Of course, there are also the other references I spoke of that make it fit "better."

Now as for the "contradictions", I have already explained to you why the Triforce mark is not a problem. Accept facts and you might not end up like LionHarted. And as for the Nightmares, I don't recall Zol being in ALttP, or one of Link's most dreaded foes for that matter, so what's your point? All the Nightmares except Agahnim, Ganon and Deth-I were random. And if one of those were randomized... I don't see the problem.

This post has been edited by Hero of Legend: 10 April 2008 - 08:21 AM

[Raien]

It would be more concise to say that Zol was the only enemy not to make a first appearance as a boss in ALTTP (and of course I'm not counting Deth-I; the Nightmares' true form), in which case I don't see how the one discrepancy should somehow nullify the entire argument. The Nightmare takes forms from bosses in ALTTP, and thus it directly implies that Link was in ALTTP.

LionHarted, on Apr 10 2008, 04:11 AM, said:

Because it would seem that the Imprisoning War story itself (i.e., the manual story) favours one fact over the other. Obviously the internal plot has not changed substantially, since it is a rerelease, not a remake.

Since your argument is that ALttP's relationship to the creation has been retconned, I have to contend that it is more evident that it has been upheld than it is evident that Ganon's direct involvement in the events leading up to the sages' seal has been upheld. Since both of these conditions seem to be present, neither of us can really make any claims as to the nature of the retcon, only that one must have taken place. That is why I turn to the manual story as a source for what we are actually meant to know about the war itself.

Your point that Ganon is obviously responsible for the Dark World threatening the Light World in ALttP is valid, but I would also contend that if death eliminates the dark effects on the realm, as the Triforce claims, then by the lifetime of ALttP Ganon it should already have been restored for him to corrupt yet again. Obviously a second corruption is not implied by the text, but, then again, if the IW is not meant to occupy the spot in the timeline occupied by OoT, there's no reason to refer to the creation, as it's really rather irrelevant to ALttP, since the individual emblems of the Triforce are never referenced in the course of the game.

Why do you keep bringing up that a certain statement in ALTTP needs to be retconned? My question has nothing to do with that point.

The SNES version implies that the Imprisoning War was begun by Ganon.
The SNES version implies that the Imprisoning War began after the creation of Hyrule.

The GBA version implies that the Imprisoning War was begun by Ganon.
The GBA version implies that the Imprisoning War began after the creation of Hyrule.

Even with the removal of the manual, no meanings actually change. Thus, I am asking why you continue to distinguish the two versions, when you might as well just refer to ALTTP as a single story.

[Impossible]

Quote

Well, the fact that the Oracles re-used pretty much everything from LA could (and likely did) work both ways.

Not really... That was done to save development time and costs. The idea was that by reusing assets like that, they could release a large number of Zelda games in rapid succession. Typical Capcom thinking. It wasn't a plot thing, it was making a Zelda game on a system that already had one, without many of the people usually involved in making Zelda games from scratch.

Quote

Now as for the "contradictions", I have already explained to you why the Triforce mark is not a problem. Accept facts and you might not end up like LionHarted. And as for the Nightmares, I don't recall Zol being in ALttP, or one of Link's most dreaded foes for that matter, so what's your point? All the Nightmares except Agahnim, Ganon and Deth-I were random. And if one of those were randomized... I don't see the problem.

And the Triforce mark is not something you can just magically ignore. It's NEVER there in LA. That DOES matter. It's always on Link's hand, in every pre-rendered scene in the Oracles where he appears. That's a fact, too. Even if it's not always there, which there isn't evidence of in the GAME, it's there pretty damn often, and should appear at some point on LA Link's hand. You can't seriously be trying to say that this point is entirely debunked by some random manual art. What if that art is based on Link BEFORE he's chosen by the Triforce? The manual is set "before" the game starts, isn't it? Doesn't the Triforce mark appear on Link's hand when the Triforce sends him on his quest? And since some random person would have drawn those, I seriously doubt they had much say in the in-game plot element of Link's Triforce mark. They can't impact that. Different people work on different aspects of the game, and it's hard to say that manual visuals were put there for story reasons... Not when there's no evidence that such a case exists in the game.

The reference to the two specific major plot bosses of ALttP was INTENTIONAL, that's the problem. So was LA's manual referencing ALttP. So was KnS referencing LA. You're altering intent, that much is undeniable. It may be based on your interpretation of a new intent, but it still abandons the old one, which is also canonical.

Connecting LA to ALttP as intended and connecting OoT to ALttP are two very, very different issues. Nothing has made ANY aspect of the connection between ALttP and LA impossible, or created a single contradiction or flaw in that idea. The IW discussion is very major and has a lot of evidence behind it, while this mostly comes from differences in interpretation. Nothing is wrong or inferior about my interpretation - in fact, I'm following the creator intent, something I always do if it's 100% possible to do so, and there's no contradicting evidence. Regardless of interpretive hints in OoX, the greatest source for evidence of a particular game's timeline placement is always that game itself. Everything else is secondary in reliability.

[Hero of Legend]

jhurvid said:

It would be more concise to say that Zol was the only enemy not to make a first appearance as a boss in ALTTP (and of course I'm not counting Deth-I; the Nightmares' true form), in which case I don't see how the one discrepancy should somehow nullify the entire argument. The Nightmare takes forms from bosses in ALTTP, and thus it directly implies that Link was in ALTTP.

Regardless, the fact remains that most of the Nightmares ARE random bosses, so if "Agahnim" was replaced with such a boss, it does not make any real difference. Of course I know what the Nightmares’ forms originally implied - I'm just saying Agahnim's presence is not a problem for the Oracles-LA theory.

Impossible said:

Not really... That was done to save development time and costs. The idea was that by reusing assets like that, they could release a large number of Zelda games in rapid succession. Typical Capcom thinking. It wasn't a plot thing, it was making a Zelda game on a system that already had one, without many of the people usually involved in making Zelda games from scratch.

So you're saying every reference to LA was just a random fluke and that there is no possibility that these references had anything to do with the developers taking advantage of the fact that the games were being built with the same assets? I guess that's kind of possible...

Also, since you brought Capcom up, could you please tell me why they’ve retconned the hell out of every single one of their franchises for no reason?

Quote

You can't seriously be trying to say that this point is entirely debunked by some random manual art.

Yes, I can. Whatever you infer from the game's art is none of my concern - it's possible, and that's all I care about.

Quote

The reference to the two specific major plot bosses of ALttP was INTENTIONAL, that's the problem. So was LA's manual referencing ALttP. So was KnS referencing LA. You're altering intent, that much is undeniable. It may be based on your interpretation of a new intent, but it still abandons the old one, which is also canonical.

No, it WAS canonical. If I'm right, it does not matter anymore. And that's not a problem.

Quote

in fact, I'm following the creator intent, something I always do if it's 100% possible to do so, and there's no contradicting evidence. Regardless of interpretive hints in OoX, the greatest source for evidence of a particular game's timeline placement is always that game itself. Everything else is secondary in reliability.

Then OoT is still the Seal War? Because the game still claims to be. All the newer games and interviews; those are secondary, and should not count, eh? Right.

This post has been edited by Hero of Legend: 10 April 2008 - 09:32 AM

[Raien]

Hero of Legend, on Apr 10 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

Regardless, the fact remains that most of the Nightmares ARE random bosses, so if "Agahnim" was replaced with such a boss, it does not make any real difference. Of course I know what the Nightmares’ forms originally implied - I'm just saying Agahnim's presence is not a problem for the Oracles-LA theory.

The Nightmare bosses aren't random if they all correlate with a particular source. The fact that there is a correlation is evidence that connects to a previous game; ALTTP.

This post has been edited by jhurvid: 10 April 2008 - 09:33 AM

[Hero of Legend]

"Regardless, the fact remains that most of the Nightmares ARE random bosses, so if "Agahnim" was replaced with such a boss, it does not make any real difference. Of course I know what the Nightmares’ forms originally implied - I'm just saying Agahnim's presence is not a problem for the Oracles-LA theory."

This post has been edited by Hero of Legend: 10 April 2008 - 09:37 AM

[LionHarted]

jhurvid, on Apr 10 2008, 08:32 AM, said:

The Nightmare bosses aren't random if they all correlate with a particular source. The fact that there is a correlation is evidence that connects to a previous game; ALTTP.

So if bosses correlate, it's a reference, but if enemies do, it's not?

Yay selective reasoning. I love it.

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 10 2008, 09:16 PM, said:

So if bosses correlate, it's a reference, but if enemies do, it's not?

You can't nullify an argument due to one discrepancy. It's like saying Zelda in Twilight Princess is not really Zelda because her hair isn't completely blonde. One of the Nightmare's forms is a giant Zol, but all the other forms are bosses from ALTTP. And not just any old bosses, we have Ganon and Agahnim, two of the main villains from ALTTP. If that doesn't clearly and obviously say "these are Link's nightmares from ALTTP" then I don't know what does.

[LionHarted]

jhurvid, on Apr 10 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

You can't nullify an argument due to one discrepancy.

Tell that to Impossible, and take it to heart yourself.

Quote

One of the Nightmare's forms is a giant Zol, but all the other forms are bosses from ALTTP. And not just any old bosses, we have Ganon and Agahnim, two of the main villains from ALTTP. If that doesn't clearly and obviously say "these are Link's nightmares from ALTTP" then I don't know what does.

It's about as meaningful as the world of the FS titles being based on a number of elements in TWW, the central power of the Four Sword titles being a prominent feature of PH, two bosses from LoZ being revamped for PH, and the entire cast of enemies in FSA being from TWW or ALttP.

This post has been edited by LionHarted: 10 April 2008 - 03:34 PM

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 10 2008, 09:33 PM, said:

Tell that to Impossible, and take it to heart yourself.

Referencing what exactly?

Quote

It's about as meaningful as the world of the FS titles being based on a number of elements in TWW, the central power of the Four Sword titles being a prominent feature of PH, two bosses from LoZ being revamped for PH, and the entire cast of enemies in FSA being from TWW or ALttP.

Once again, you applied no context to any of these points.

LA was originally intended to be a sequel to ALTTP. The final boss is called the Nightmares, meaning that it is by definition nightmares. The forms that the Nightmares take are evil monsters that Link fought in ALTTP, which by definition are nightmarish. These points influence the argument that the Nightmares take the forms of Link's nightmares from his battles in ALTTP.

Visual references to TWW in the FS titles do not actively relate to TWW in terms of progression. Thus, there is no context that actively implies a progression from TWW to the FS games or vice versa.

The Force Gems are something which all living things in Hyrule possess irrespective of location or time period, and so their appearance does not implicate a timeline progression.

In fact, any visual references or remakes of old enemies or bosses cannot be shown as part of timeline progression without evidence of such a progression.

This post has been edited by jhurvid: 10 April 2008 - 03:44 PM

[LionHarted]

jhurvid, on Apr 10 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

Referencing what exactly?

The sole contradiction between the Mirror of Twilight and Dark Mirror; that is, that they are in different places.

Quote

LA was originally intended to be a sequel to ALTTP. The final boss is called the Nightmares, meaning that it is by definition nightmares. The forms that the Nightmares take are evil monsters that Link fought in ALTTP, which by definition are nightmarish. These points influence the argument that the Nightmares take the forms of Link's nightmares from his battles in ALTTP.

Or that they're simply based on the most recent Zelda game in development.

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 10 2008, 09:47 PM, said:

The sole contradiction between the Mirror of Twilight and Dark Mirror; that is, that they are in different places.

In case you hadn't noticed, I haven't even touched that debate. It's one of those arguments that depends on proving FSA's timeline placement beforehand. If FSA is in the Child Timline, then the two mirrors can't be the same. If FSA is in the Adult Timeline, then the two mirrors are probably the same.

Quote

Or that they're simply based on the most recent Zelda game in development.

Quite true. ALTTP was the most recent Zelda game in development, and thus it makes sense that LA was developed as ALTTP's sequel. This then justifies the appearance of ALTTP bosses in LA.

This post has been edited by jhurvid: 10 April 2008 - 04:06 PM

[Impossible]

Quote

The sole contradiction between the Mirror of Twilight and Dark Mirror; that is, that they are in different places.

Absolutely false. There are many other contradictions which I've already pointed out, there are more of them than there are similarities. Your decision not to read my posts doesn't make my arguments as bad as yours. And regardless, it's ridiculous because the entire theory is reliant on FSA being on the Adult Timeline. If it isn't, there's no merit whatsoever. And yet the only thing it's supposed to prove is that FSA is on the Adult Timeline, which it's also necessary to be the case for it to be true at all. Which makes it completely impossible to actually use as evidence. You can't proceed on the assumption of your theory and say that makes it better to start with.

HoL seems to be taking the same approach now. Maybe you're NOT right - and from the perspective of someone who doesn't already believe in your theory, why on earth should it look "better"? Agahnim is still a direct reference to ALttP, so you're still altering the intent of that boss. It's a canonical fact that LA was intended as a direct, immediate sequel to ALttP, and you're altering that. Oracle Link is still implied to have a permanent Triforce mark on his hand, so you're altering the intent of that plot, too. You can't fuck around with intent just to try and maintain that your theory is "possible", when you're arguing that your theory has actually replaced the old placement as creator intent. Using manual art as evidence is a lot like LionHarted, actually. Keeping it possible doesn't change the facts, because you're reinterpreting things in both the Oracles and in LA. So why should I see that as "better"? One connection doesn't compensate for a bunch of things that need to be changed from what was intended to fit.

My point isn't that it's impossible for an Agahnim-like boss to appear in Link's nightmares, my point is that the one in LA is actually Agahnim, not some similar boss, and you're changing the point of that. The other Nightmares are irrelevant, he and Ganon are the only ones with a specific meaning.

I already pointed out that the IW comparison is completely fucking invalid, so I can't even comprehend why you would bring that up immediately afterwards. There's evidence to contradict OoT being the IW. There is not evidence to contradict LA being a sequel to ALttP.

[LionHarted]

Impossible, on Apr 10 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

There are many other contradictions which I've already pointed out, there are more of them than there are similarities.

Excuse me?

I'm not going to line out again how every property of both mirrors and their histories can be linked, aside from their location in their respective games.

Quote

And regardless, it's ridiculous because the entire theory is reliant on FSA being on the Adult Timeline.

I would prefer to think that an object with this much significance is significant to the series timeline. The only way for it to be significant as things stand is if it is the Twilight Mirror. The only way for it to be the Twilight Mirror is if FSA is in the Adult Timeline, based on current understandings of FSA. FSA could also be before TP, but this doesn't really follow.

Or am I incapable of coming to conclusions about various aspects of the series independently? If everything I did relied on me maintaining a pre-existing theory, my theory wouldn't have changed so radically in recent months.

Quote

There's evidence to contradict OoT being the IW.

The IW's self-placement as beginning while the Triforce is still in the Sacred Realm after the Creation is sufficient to cement it as OoT.

OoT=IW is not the only fact that could possibly have been retconned to allot for the two post-ALttP Ganon deaths.

This post has been edited by LionHarted: 10 April 2008 - 06:06 PM

[CID Farwin]

I have posted my opinions of the dark mirror side of things in the appropriate topic.

As for Link's Awakening, It is most definitely ALttP's sequel. Nothing has changed about that. One scene at the end of the Oracles is not enough to counterbalance that. The ship is most obviously a reference, but that alone is not reason enough, especially when weighed against the rest of the evidence.

The Triforce Mark is a moot point, because it's not important in LA, so there would be no need for it to show up in LA. As it was made to follow ALttP, in which Link has no Triforce Mark that I know of, there would be no Triforce Mark in LA either. If the developers meant for the Oracles to go before LA, then Triforce Marks wouldn't suddenly appear in LA.

[Mgoblue201]

Hero of Legend, on Apr 10 2008, 06:50 AM, said:

And the fact that it is speculation that the manual was changed means nothing to my argument. My arguments rests not on the thesis that Nintendo chose to change LA's placement, but, like you said, on the fact that the Oracles appear to do so. Whether you consider that reason to be valid in an argument, I could not care less about; at any rate you are not fair in your judgment, nor do you consider all the evidence - presumably due to your expressed personal bias in this matter. Like I said, I do not consider anything but the latest information to be relevant in an argument, and if am led to I believe something has changed, I accept that. Of course I weight the new info against the old - "what reason is there to believe this?" But that I have already done, and whatever you think of my conclusions about the Oracles' ending does not impede the argument as such. Suffice to say, this is not a flaw in reasoning on my part, it is simply a different method of reasoning. You can't beat me if I don't play by your rules, and unfortunately for you, there is no reason for me to adhere to your system.

I said that you could believe what you want, so I don't know where I ever said that I was forcing views upon anyone. But in terms of weighing the connections against each other, the LTTP connection is simply more solid. We are practically told that it is a sequel to LTTP. With the Oracles we are only given some elements that might or might not be timeline material. That is inescapable. Again, that says nothing about the fact of the matter. That there is a better reason for the LTTP connection does not make it factually correct now. After all, fact exists outside of reason. One could have brilliant reasons and still be wrong. The Oracle connection could be real and could have been intended. One is certainly qualified to think that way given the evidence. But I chose to stick with what we last knew that had been established as factual. The LTTP-LA connection was at one time a fact, and so I must have something approaching air tight evidence to claim that it is not a fact today. Believing in the Oracle connection simply means that one requires less evidence to repeal the LTTP connection. Take that for what you will.

[Hero of Legend]

Well then, there's no problem. I prefer to be liberal rather than overly conservative in these matters, simply because when dealing with intent, logic sometimes does take a leap out the window. Indeed, we know nothing except that which the games tell us. Then, if a game implies such and such - take TMC's claims to be Link's original adventure - how do you interpret that, and does such "spiritual" evidence overrule the "hard facts" evidence presented in games like OoT? In such cases, weak evidence might say more about intent than hard facts, which is all I'm saying. Of course, I know the rules to being reasonable – Earth appears to be flat, but is that a good reason to think so - especially when even the old Greeks knew it wasn't? The difference here is that Earth might someday become flat - and if a game implies such, should we then ignore past inclinations otherwise? Or is this new shape confined to one game alone? Obviously that’s up to each person to decide until further evidence is available.

Impossible: So what if I'm "altering the intent" of LA? That's the point of a retcon. You're doing the same thing with TMC, and it doesn't matter if it is in contradiction or simply peacefull coexistence with OoT; that's still changing the original intent of OoT being first. And of course the creators reserve the right to change such intent, evidence or no. Now as for the Triforce mark, I can see where you are comming from, but if we assume there is any correlation whatsoever between the Oracles and other Zelda games of the time, the mark should only appear at certain times - typically important plot points - and so we don't need to assume the official art is errornous. At any rate one must weight such disparacies against what is percieved to be the intent of the game, and in that sense, no Zelda is entirely flawless – again, look at the Triforce marks in TP, for example.

This post has been edited by Hero of Legend: 11 April 2008 - 03:11 AM

[Impossible]

TMC does not change OoT's story. At all. What you're doing is separating a sequel from the game it comes after, changing the actual Link who appears in those games. That's not the same as putting a game before OoT that in no way affects OoT. ALttP was the first game at some point, that doesn't mean that OoT changed their intent. And OoT doesn't present any "hard facts" that make it first. It only shows us the beginning of the Triforce story in later games. TMC doesn't change the impact of OoT on the timeline. I'm following the intent of TMC to determine its own placement, while you're following what you believe is the intent of the Oracles to determine a different game's placement eight years earlier.

But there isn't much evidence of this supposed intent in the Oracles. It's really just the ending that could be seen as a reference. There needs to be something really solid if you want to say there's been an actual change to known facts. However, there is not a single contradiction in LA as a sequel to ALttP, and nothing you say can change that. There are contradictions in TMC being anywhere except at the start, especially because the entire point of the story is actually the beginning of Link's adventures. That's not the same as a throwaway scene at the end that doesn't relate to the plot or have any in-game explanation associated with it.

I basically agree with all of Mgoblue201's last post, so I don't have a lot more to add right now.

This post has been edited by Impossible: 11 April 2008 - 03:30 AM