238 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

I'm so glad you've taken to trying to understand creator intent, just as I explained. Wait, no...

It's either that or OoT does not feature the Ganon from the IW, even though it features the birth of Ganon and was the first time the Triforce left the Sacred Realm (according to the IW story).

So we either have one retcon or two... Maybe three.

[Impossible]

I'm so glad you've taken to trying to understand creator intent, just as I explained. Wait, no...

It's either that or OoT does not feature the Ganon from the IW, even though it features the birth of Ganon and was the first time the Triforce left the Sacred Realm (according to the IW story).

So we either have one retcon or two... Maybe three.

When does the IW say that the Triforce left the Sacred Realm? Pretty sure it didn't, and ALttP seems to indicate that.

And it's pretty clearly a different Ganon. ALttP's Ganon is the IW's, this is a canonical fact and simply impossible to deny. Do you seriously think that when the sages talk about the Ganon who kidnapped them and the Ganon who was in the IW, literally in the same breath, that it could be a different person? You're the one contradicting the games, and I am certainly not. My "retcon" doesn't contradict the games - it's actually a retcon that TWW, FSA and TP have each made increasingly obvious. With every console Zelda, it's just going to get more and more like that, because that's what Nintendo have decided. Your theory also requires the second Ganondorf to get into the Sacred Realm and touch the Triforce, is it's still not going to be the first time.

[LionHarted]

ALttP's Ganon is the IW's, this is a canonical fact and simply impossible to deny.

The IW happened in response to events that occurred while the Triforce was still in the Sacred Realm from the Creation. This is a plainly stated canonical fact, not one that has to be determined through inference.

If anything, TP supports this idea, since it further elaborates on the events before the IW.

Do you seriously think that when the sages talk about the Ganon who kidnapped them and the Ganon who was in the IW, literally in the same breath

They don't talk about Ganon in relation to the IW?

XD

[Impossible]

The IW happened in response to events that occurred while the Triforce was still in the Sacred Realm from the Creation. This is a plainly stated canonical fact, not one that has to be determined through inference.

No it isn't. Such a thing isn't plainly stated, and considering how many games now precede ALttP, an inference like that is totally irrelevant. And you're fucking around with the obvious intent. You're contradicting many plainly stated canonical facts, too.

They don't talk about Ganon in relation to the IW?

I can't even tell what you're trying to say here. They refer to Ganon's past actions, which happened in the IW.

Edited by Impossible, 13 April 2008 - 01:09 AM.

[LionHarted]

Such a thing isn't plainly stated

Yes, it is directly stated that that was the state of the Triforce when the events occurred.

In the rerelease, too, mind you, which was put out at about the same time as TWW, the game that apparently made this impossible.

I can't even tell what you're trying to say here. They refer to Ganon's past actions, which happened in the IW.

They refer to Ganon's past actions.

But if OoT is the IW, and this Ganon isn't OoT's Ganon, then I could just as well argue that Ganon's past actions have nothing to do with the IW. Ganon takes the Triforce and transforms worlds all the time. Every time, in fact.

[Raien]

In the rerelease, too, mind you, which was put out at about the same time as TWW, the game that apparently made this impossible.

The re-release doesn't distinguish two Ganons either, which only proves that it doesn't take TWW's story into account, despite similar development times.

[Fyxe]

LionHarted, when was the last time you actually played a Zelda game? From start to finish? I recommend you play ALttP again.

Actually, that's a recommendation to a lot of theorists here, who recently have been increasingly bogged down in nitpicking and pointless semantic debates. Go play some Zelda and get some perspective, please do. Not naming names, and I know the chance of any of you actually doing this is nil, but hey, if one person does it, I'll be happy. Go on. Give it a shot.

If anything, it'll help you get a sense of context.

[FDL]

I agree with Fyxe and I'd like to add the Lex should also play The Wind Waker again. And pay close attention. These debates have actually made me participate less because of how ridiculous they are.

[MikePetersSucks]

LionHarted, when was the last time you actually played a Zelda game? From start to finish? I recommend you play ALttP again.

Actually, that's a recommendation to a lot of theorists here, who recently have been increasingly bogged down in nitpicking and pointless semantic debates. Go play some Zelda and get some perspective, please do. Not naming names, and I know the chance of any of you actually doing this is nil, but hey, if one person does it, I'll be happy. Go on. Give it a shot.

If anything, it'll help you get a sense of context.

THANK YOU!

[Impossible]

I agree with Fyxe and I'd like to add the Lex should also play The Wind Waker again. And pay close attention. These debates have actually made me participate less because of how ridiculous they are.

I agree with all of the above. I was hoping what I said to Lex would encourage him to take another look at TWW, but he's kind of been ignoring all of it.

I think he also has this explicit vs. implicit thing backwards... It's never explicitly and directly stated that the Triforce never left the Sacred Realm up to ALttP. Nor is it fair to assume that, when it's entirely possible that past uses of the Triforce aren't known or aren't relevant to ALttP. And if that is the implication, it still contradicts OoT anyway, creating a pretty big difference between ALttP and OoT. We know for a fact that the Triforce has left the SR, yet ALttP says it hasn't. On the other hand, you would be nuts to deny that the IW and ALttP have the same Ganon, because it's very explicit. And, in context, it would be pure insanity to deny it, but all you're doing is ignoring that context.

...even this world, originally, was the sacred land where the Triforce was placed.

But the man who obtained it...
By the evil wish of the thief boss "Ganon", into such a world...

It seems that he plotted to also rule our Light World once he had built up power.

Then, using we seven maidens who inherit the power of the Seven Sages as the key, he broke the seal, and furthermore, he intends to open a passage of greater power near the castle. However, that passage has not yet completely opened.

Then, the one who again discovered the sacred land was the thief called Ganondorf.

But, thankfully, he didn't know how to return to the World of Light.

[Other stuff]

The only one who can defeat Ganondorf the thief... no, Ganon the Demon King of Darkness, is you... I am praying.

Edited by Impossible, 14 April 2008 - 11:24 PM.

[LionHarted]

If anything, it'll help you get a sense of context.

You know, there's this magical thing called a personal view.

I don't go around trying to tout developer intent. That's jhurvid/Impossible/certain other people here's job.

I go around talking about, you know, MY reaction to the game. As of now, the only game I'm confused about is ALttP, and both sides compromise some established fact to put it where they put it. I prefer to compromise the more archaic presentation in favour of the more recent.

Other than that, what the hell is wrong telling the current body of theorists that they're being precisely what the ZU Wise Men were? Pompous asses who think they've got a high ground simply because they can agree. Everyone honestly believes their interpretation of the evidence is true, otherwise they wouldn't believe it. But, hey, if you want to go down that route again, fine with me.

[Raien]

I don't go around trying to tout developer intent. That's jhurvid/Impossible/certain other people here's job.

Says the man who touts the Miyamoto Order and that one quote saying OoT=IW as if they were gods gifts to timeline theorising. We all do it; don't be hypocritical.

Other than that, what the hell is wrong telling the current body of theorists that they're being precisely what the ZU Wise Men were? Pompous asses who think they've got a high ground simply because they can agree. Everyone honestly believes their interpretation of the evidence is true, otherwise they wouldn't believe it. But, hey, if you want to go down that route again, fine with me.

We don't all agree on a timeline. About half the people on this forum I reckon place ALTTP after TWW, and half believe that modern science has a place in the Zelda mythology.

But here's the thing. All people in a group must work with the same goal in mind, or else there will be inevitable conflict. I can raise a personal experience with that from my recent incursions into Resident Evil timeline debating. The board I joined was dedicated to explaining as much of the Resident Evil timeline in detail, taking into account all the evidence that was presented to them. But I wasn't interested in the tiny details and took it upon myself to simplify the timeline; retconning contradictive information in order to make it simpler. I believed that was what the developers were intending with Umbrella Chronicles, but ultimately the goals were too conflicting with the forum and I couldn't functionally prove that the developers were simplifying the timeline. So in the end, I left. And until the goals become more in line, I will never debate there again.

If you aren't going to follow the same goal as everyone else here, then there's going to be inevitable conflict. If you don't want that conflict, I would recommend the Zelda Universe forums where people are also more interested in creativity than developer intent.

Edited by jhurvid, 15 April 2008 - 07:40 AM.

[Fyxe]

You know, there's this magical thing called a personal view.

And you're talking about magical things called video games.

There's a distinct problem with this forum at the moment, and it stems from the fact that there are essentially three or four people arguing. There's you, there's your friend Impossible who seems to have turned up solely to give you more attention than anyone deserves, there's jhurvid, and there's Jumbie.

That's mostly it. This alone isn't the problem however; the problem is that you are all discussing semantics. You're either discussing geography, discussing sub-Trekkie science nonsense, or arguing about piddling little textual details that nobody in their sane mind would focus on. There's no real storyline discussion going on. I have to say that Jumbie's translations are EASILY the most relevant and interesting things on the forums, although a lot of the responses to the translations he posts up delve into the very essence of 'scraping the bottom of the barrel'. Translating Japanese is an art, not a science; one word doesn't a timeline make.

The fact is; we don't know the developer intentions. We only know bits of it. Unless someone actually goes around and hunts out some obscure interviews with Miyamoto and Aonuma and other developers on Japanese websites and in Japanese gaming media, we cannot know the whole story.

And thus we're back to my main point: they're video games. The story is not as complex or as interwoven as many of you people seem to believe it to be. It does not involve real physics or science, nor does it have an in-depth explanation of magic and lore. It does not have a set geography: it has a number of references that are predominantly visual and textual homages. It does not have a detailed explanation for how the timeline progresses; there is no known answer to how Ganon escaped the seal in TWW's back story, there's no known answer to what occurs after his death in TP. Un-translated interviews can possibly shed light on this; arguing about geographical differences in a video game will not.

It should also be added that the idea that the developers have a solidly fixed timeline for the Zelda series is utter insanity of the highest order, and if you don't believe they bend the rules nor have some plot holes in there somewhere, you're extremely deluded.

LionHarted, don't worry; this post was not solely aimed at you by any means. I'm just throwing this out there.

When I say you need context, I mean you need context in reality. They're video games. Play them again, and realise that they are not an epic, interwoven masterworks that only you have figured out the intricacies of. They are singular video games with vague correlations and the only clues to their connections are the back stories, interviews with developers and something which people love to ignore: the context in which the games were released.

Edited by Fyxe, 15 April 2008 - 08:20 AM.

[LionHarted]

To Fyxe: I actually agree with every word you've posted up there, except I do think that trying to work out obscure things like geography is somewhat interesting. As for context, it's really subjective, isn't it? A player who has the split timeline in mind when he picks up TWW will have a much different opinion than one who does not, etc. etc. etc.

Says the man who touts the Miyamoto Order and that one quote saying OoT=IW as if they were gods gifts to timeline theorising. We all do it; don't be hypocritical.

Okay. Excuse me. I don't go around claiming my views about games the developers have said next to nothing about timeline-wise are developer intent.

And I don't. I just posit what I make of from evidence or, in the more recent case of ALttP, omission of evidence.

But here's the thing. All people in a group must work with the same goal in mind, or else there will be inevitable conflict.

Blah, blah, blah. Wise Men. Wise Men. Wise Men.

Dress it up in a suit and tie, but it's still got the same stench.

Edited by LionHarted, 15 April 2008 - 08:22 AM.

[Raien]

Okay. Excuse me. I don't go around claiming my views about games the developers have said next to nothing about timeline-wise are developer intent.

A developer doesn't need to say something to intend something; we find developer intention through analysing the text. Did a developer ever state that ALTTP was developed as a prequel to LoZ? No, but we can see that it is through analysis of the text.

Blah, blah, blah. Wise Men. Wise Men. Wise Men.

Dress it up in a suit and tie, but it's still got the same stench.

All forums possess some degree of exclusivity to suit the needs of its members. This forum is for members who want to theorise the correct timeline and the Zelda Universe forums are for those who want to theorise creative timelines.

Edited by jhurvid, 15 April 2008 - 03:10 PM.

[Fyxe]

To Fyxe: I actually agree with every word you've posted up there, except I do think that trying to work out obscure things like geography is somewhat interesting. As for context, it's really subjective, isn't it? A player who has the split timeline in mind when he picks up TWW will have a much different opinion than one who does not, etc. etc. etc.

Interesting, fine, but people shouldn't dress it up as actual defining characteristics of a timeline. Which they continue to do.

And as for context; that's why I'm predominantly in favour of locating and translating more interviews rather than watch you guys have endless circular arguments and fling vitriol at each other all day. Nobody could have said that two distinct timelines existed for certain until Aonuma pretty much confirmed it and explained exactly where TP fitted in the timeline. People can't really argue about that now; it's the most up-to-date comment from the creator we've got and if I'm remembering rightly, he said it after the game was completed so it's not something that was lost in the development process. It's pretty much set in stone and the only thing it contradicts openly is ALttP. Nobody can work out precisely how ALttP fits in the timeline, and without knowing more details, nobody will.

[Impossible]

To Fyxe: I actually agree with every word you've posted up there

Which is why you elicited almost all of the meaningless arguments and nonsense Fyxe is complaining about.

I agree that we should be more focused on things that actually matter, and actually could have been intended. The one thing to keep in mind is that while you're quite right about the fact that most of this crap is irrelevant because there's no damn way the developers were thinking about most of it, the developers WERE thinking about the individual game plots. Which makes analysing them very relevant.

A player who has the split timeline in mind when he picks up TWW will have a much different opinion than one who does not, etc. etc. etc.

That's why I explained context to you in a way that focused solely on the stand-alone plot of one game, to point out that it's not all about random obscure timeline connections. So that you can look at TWW as an individual story before you worry about the timeline, because that's exactly what Nintendo did. You still don't get what context means, do you?

[LionHarted]

Nobody can work out precisely how ALttP fits in the timeline, and without knowing more details, nobody will.

Well put.

The only thing we can say for sure is that its relationship with OoT has changed since the original release. We can't say how. Which was really why I've been pushing my objection to the late-IW idea as being established as the only possible explanation.

This topic can end.

Edited by LionHarted, 17 April 2008 - 01:05 PM.

[LionHarted]

Okay; I really understand the other side, and I'm not trying to argue, and I know I said this topic was not needed anymore.

I just thought I'd present something to defend my point.

Okay, so you say that there's no discrepancy made to show that IW Ganon isn't ALttP Ganon; that in fact they are presented as the same entity? You then use this to reason that the IW and ALttP must be in perfect sequence with perfect consistency.

Consider also that ALttP's manual implies (as the translators of the manual have shown) that Ganon from the IW was the very same Ganon from LoZ. But does ALttP have perfect consistency with LoZ as far as Ganon? Certainly not. There is a contradiction.

All I argue is that there is yet another contradiction on this level. This is perfectly valid reasoning, considering the above, and as IW=OoT is more recent than the making of ALttP, what ALttP says can effectively be considered compatible with this despite contradiction. This is so even if you add on other games, for as it is said, adding games to the timeline does not change it.

That's my reasoning. It's perfectly valid because it has precedence. The reason why I see it pertinent to post this response is because people write it off as invalid without considering the reasoning behind it. That is all.

[Raien]

If Ganon can be resurrected in AoL, it doesn't take a leap of faith to presume he can be resurrected before LoZ. I don't see a contradiction (unless you're going to nitpick the exact requirements for resurrecting Ganon, which I would not be surprised to see). The only thing you can say is that there's no evidence of direct progression from the events of ALTTP to LoZ, but then that same thing can be said for any game to LoZ/AoL. LoZ/AoL are disconnected stories in the timeline.

Edited by Raian, 25 April 2008 - 07:57 AM.

[LionHarted]

If Ganon can be resurrected in AoL, it doesn't take a leap of faith to presume he can be resurrected before LoZ. I don't see a contradiction (unless you're going to nitpick the exact requirements for resurrecting Ganon, which I would not be surprised to see).

And OoT Ganon can be resurrected prior to ALttP.

[Raien]

And OoT Ganon can be resurrected prior to ALttP.

Possibly.

Prior to OoT, there was just one Ganon in the timeline, and his origin as the Demon King was when he took the Triforce in ALTTP's back story. After his transformation, he remained the Demon King after death and could be resurrected by his minions. Thus, the connection between the two games is understood without statement. It's rather like the resurrection of Dracula in the Castlevania series; it's not always explained, but it is accepted.

OoT introduced Ganondorf as a character who was titled the Demon King, but he could not permanently shed his human form. The distinction of Ganondorf's character from the original Demon King raises questions as to whether they can be treated with the same understanding. It could be argued that only the Triforce transforms Ganon, but then we have the third incarnation that is transformed by the Trident. Is the power of the Trident as strong as the Triforce? And are we supposed to believe Ganon can be reincarnated?

tl;dr version: The mythology surrounding Ganon was firmly established during ALTTP's development, but it has been undermined by multiple incarnations of the character that relate to different sources of power. Since we don't know exactly how Ganondorf changes with the acquisition of different powers, we can't establish whether his power to resurrect after ALTTP exists after OoT.

[LionHarted]

You're dissecting the point much too far.

The point is merely that Ganon can be resurrected behind the scenes, as you said. But if this reasoning applies to his appearance in LoZ, it also applies to any other Ganon-death.

[Raien]

The point is merely that Ganon can be resurrected behind the scenes, as you said. But if this reasoning applies to his appearance in LoZ, it also applies to any other Ganon-death.

The notion of immortality relies on a single origin for Ganon and subsequent appearances to be definite resurrections of that original character. The Zelda timeline provides us with three separate origins for Ganon (two, according to your theory) which undermines the notion of one immortal character.

So:
-We don't know whether all incarnations of Ganon are the same immortal character.
-We don't know whether reincarnation is a possible form of resurrection for Ganon.

And thus:
-We don't know whether all appearances of Ganon are resurrections, reincarnations or the birth of a new Demon King.
-We can't establish any contradictions between ALTTP and LoZ based on the nature of Ganon's immortality, since it is unknown.

Edited by Raian, 25 April 2008 - 09:46 AM.

[Jumbie]

The Zelda timeline provides us with three separate origins for Ganon (two, according to your theory) which undermines the notion of one immortal character.

Three origins? I also know of merely two different Ganondorfs, the one who took the Triforce (OoT) and the one who took the Trident (FSA)...

[LionHarted]

I think he's referring either to the split timeline as giving us two origins in OoT, or to the questionable origins of LoZ Ganon. I'm not sure which.

I personally take the origins of the Trident to mean that there is a specific demon, rather than that the Trident is simply demonic. I'm going to presume that the NoA translation was made in good faith to the original text, even if it isn't a literal reproduction. That is, I think that the clauses refer to a Trident belonging to a demon, who is reborn. Otherwise I see no reason for a reference to a demon at all, unless that demon is the demon we see in the story (Ganon).

From that, I conclude that all the incarnations of the King of Darkness arise from a single origin (which is implied by the text of ALttP), manifesting themselves through various means throughout history (the power of the Triforce, the power of the Trident, revival of the demon from death). Similar to the incarnations of the hero, except in a more literal way.

[CID Farwin]

You're dissecting the point much too far.

.....

*cough*

[LionHarted]

What?

Concluding that all Ganons are the same because there is an established origin is obvious.
Concluding that a reference to a demon refers to an actual demon is also obvious.
Concluding that self-placement of events is inconsistent with fan-placements of events is also obvious.

Concluding things about characters based on ideas about the nature of that character to the point that there are different rules involving the same process based on different games and different incarnations of the same character is not as obvious.

And once the argument gets to that point, all the arguments become convoluted.

Edited by LionHarted, 25 April 2008 - 12:05 PM.

[Jumbie]

I think he's referring either to the split timeline as giving us two origins in OoT, or to the questionable origins of LoZ Ganon. I'm not sure which.

Oh, that's right, TP Ganondorf is actually a third one! I overlooked that.
Then, TWW Ganondorf is the one that took the Triforce in OoT.
And ALttP Ganondorf... well, somehow he must also be the one who took the Triforce in OoT.

I personally take the origins of the Trident to mean that there is a specific demon, rather than that the Trident is simply demonic. I'm going to presume that the NoA translation was made in good faith to the original text, even if it isn't a literal reproduction. That is, I think that the clauses refer to a Trident belonging to a demon, who is reborn. Otherwise I see no reason for a reference to a demon at all, unless that demon is the demon we see in the story (Ganon).

I just want to say something. The Japanese name of the Sword of Evil's Bane is 退魔の剣, Sword of Demon's Bane*, so you might also ask, "What, there was a demon before, perhaps Ganon?"
No, the Master Sword was just created to fend off potential demons. Having realized that, I see no reason anymore why it should be different with the trident (created for a potential demon to wield).

*Checking ZL's translation comparison of ALttP, you'll find that they did translate the Master Sword as "Sword of Evil's Bane", like in English. However, since none of my five dictionaries acknowledges "evil" as a sufficient translation for 魔, and there exist dozens of better fitting words to say "evil" in Japanese, I consequently translate that Kanji as "demon", which certainly is its meaning. Just keep in mind that when it occurs, it isn't necessarily a reference to a certain character.

Edited by Jumbie, 25 April 2008 - 12:08 PM.

[LionHarted]

And ALttP Ganondorf... well, somehow he must also be the one who took the Triforce in OoT.

And the one who was in LoZ, despite dying in ALttP (or vice-versa, if you place them the other way).

I just want to say something. The Japanese name of the Sword of Evil's Bane is 退魔の剣, Sword of Demon's Bane*, so you might also ask, "What, there was a demon before, perhaps Ganon?"
No, the Master Sword was just created to fend off potential demons. Having realized that, I see no reason anymore why it should be different with the trident (created for a potential demon to wield).

Actually, as far as I know, it has only been used against one demon.
You could say Zant was another, but his power was an extension of Ganondorf's.
And the sword was clearly connected to prophecy, and all these prophecies clearly revolve around Ganon.

It was made for a purpose--to battle evil that would threaten the Triforce. That evil is Ganon.

So it is the sword of Ganon's bane, but it will be Ganon's bane in the future. The Trident differs in the respect that is is being revived, which certainly suggests that it has been used before. It is not the Trident that will be used by the demon. It is the Trident of the demon being revived.

I understand and accept the validity of what you're saying, definitely, but there's still no reason to believe that the "demon" (in both these cases, really) is NOT Ganon.

Edited by LionHarted, 25 April 2008 - 12:16 PM.