Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

IW Ganon =/= ALttP Ganon?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
238 replies to this topic

#61 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 28 April 2008 - 06:27 AM

If you were going to tell a story about the Triforce, you would explain its origins no matter what, assuming you knew them. It's illogical to say that you would only include the creation story if the story you were telling had complete continuity, because it's necessary to explain where the Triforce came from, as well as setting the stage for the story from the player's perspective.


If you were going to tell a story about the Sages' Seal, you would explain its origins no matter what, assuming you knew them. It's illogical to say that you would only include the Imprisoning War story if the story you were telling had complete continuity, because it's necessary to explain where the Sages' Seal came from, as well as setting the stage for the story from the player's perspective.

For the love of peace.

If we're going by that, then apparently, Lex would have us believe that the Triforce never left the Sacred Realm before ALttP


My God, you don't read.

I never said anything to this end. It's precisely because I won't say that that I even go with the two Ganon theory.

ALttP doesn't allow for TWW's events, because of that implied continuity, and yet you think it's perfectly okay to screw with that for the sake of one thing.


ALttP COULD allow for TWW's events, and should, because of the intent of OoT, and yet you think it's perfectly okay to screw with that for the sake of your one thing (Ganon).

I simply value OoT's story more than ALttP's, because OoT's backstory hasn't been chopped up and scattered throughout the timeline like ALttP's has.

You say that ALttP somehow says (which it doesn't) that the Triforce couldn't have left the SR before the IW, but if ALttP is accounting for events so damn precisely from the creation to ALttP, there's a metric shitload missing. Like the fact that the Ganon from what you claim to be the IW is dead. Like TWW. Like the flooding of Hyrule. While you ignore that the maidens make it a clear fact that Ganon in ALttP is the one from the IW.


1) The Triforce was in the Sacred Realm from the time the goddesses put it there at the beginning of the world to the time of the Imprisoning War. That's why it's "still there" when it begins? This is fact, and it is stated precisely as quoted.

2) Ganon dies and is revived all the time. Ganon from ALttP died, but is back in LoZ without any explicable cause.

3) TWW and the flooding of Hyrule both contribute to the idea that: (1) legends fade over time; (2) the Hylian descendants spread to all parts of the world; (3) the location of the Sacred Realm was lost completely. All of these happen before ALttP.

If you seriously believe that ALttP isn't wrong about some events, you're delusional.


Precisely, my friend.

Why the hell do a million facts matter less than one single interpretation?


See above.

Stop seeing things from only your perspective, because this is just beyond any rational belief.


I would say that blatantly disregarding a stated fact is immensely more irrational than simply accepting a situation is more complicated than it is, especially when it's proven to be more complicated than it is.

You're so hell bent on one theory that you can't see anything in an objective way anymore.


Not really. This theory has changed at least half a dozen times.

one of which is that there's only one Ganon in both the IW and ALttP.


This was back when there was only one Ganon in the series.

You seriously think you can deny that as ALttP's intent, but that this supposed continuity in ALttP's backstory can't be ignored? Even thought ALttP is missing a fucking million other important things that would be necessary for that continuity?


OoT's intent can't be ignored.

What ALttP is missing, according to you, is a Ganon, because Ganon dies in TP and TWW, but there's a Ganon in FSA.

So explain to me what's missing.

You really have warped reality in your favour here.

ALttP's manual suggests that the story is from some kind of text that exists in Hyrule, so yes, it evidently is known to some. But why the hell is it necessary for the Triforce to have been undisturbed before the IW? That's not even said to be the case. It's also entirely possible that people didn't KNOW that was the case, because that was hundreds of years ago and whoever wrote that story was unaware of the events of OoT and TP.


1) The entire story of the seizure of the Triforce is told with the creation story as a reference point. This by itself doesn't mean that there's continuity, like you said, but coupled with the fact that the GBA manual BLATANTLY STATES that is was "still there" (to use the exact words: "the Triforce still rested") from the creation, seems to tell me that this is definitely the case.

ALttP tells us Ganon is the one who has changed the Sacred Realm into the Dark World, but, really, that happens all the time, and besides, who said it ever reverted back between OoT and ALttP? If Ganon is the same character from OoT, revived (which I and you presumably both believe), then he IS the same Ganon from ALttP. Just this time he's managed to steal the whole Triforce somehow inexplicably.

So, we have one fact, the Triforce is still resting in the Sacred Realm, which becomes impossible after OoT
and another fact, Ganon has transformed the Sacred Realm into the Dark World, which is true anyway, if you're saying the Sacred Realm was left alone after he escaped in TWW.

2) As for your last point, this is exactly why I say there can be another Ganon. Quit being a hypocrite.

It's amazing how you seem to find it so impossible for ALttP's role to have changed


It has? (That question mark indicates sarcasm, by the way.)

Lex conveniently ignores the fact that the Triforce never even left the Sacred Realm between the creation and ALttP, assuming that facts established in 1991 are still the case.


No. I conveniently ignore the fact that GANON never left the Sacred Realm between the IW and ALttP, because I'm assuming that facts established in 1991 aren't the case (and that facts established in 1998 - OoT - and subsequently in 2002 - ALttP GBA - ARE).

#62 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 April 2008 - 01:30 PM

Sorry for the late reply. My laptop at home is broken, which means I can read but not reply to any posts here until I get to college.

The Sacred Grove COULD be the Master Sword pedestal from ALttP because the endgame scene evokes ALttP art, but they don't have to be the same.
The Church in TP COULD be the Church from ALttP, but it doesn't have to be.
The Triforce marks in TP COULD indicate the possession of Triforce pieces, but they don't have to.

etc. etc. for every single reference in the entire series.


This is true for the most part. Parallels don't indicate a direct progression of events by themselves; they are not enough to determine timeline placements by themselves. In most cases, the timeline theory determines parallels to be true or false, not vice versa. However, in the case of your third point, "power of the gods" is the name of the Triforce, so that tells us they possess Triforce pieces. Even when we are dealing with parallels, we still need to account for context and surrounding evidence.


PS: On an entirely different note, I would like to point out that following the original intent of OoT as the IW does not make your theory OoT-centric. In fact, it makes your theory ALTTP-centric because it establishes the IW as the focal point of your theory. To demonstrate, your theory begins with the argument that the IW refers to the creation of the Triforce and the subsequent possession by Ganondorf, which you then use to draw comparisons with the events of OoT. In this manner, OoT loses its independent meaning and TWW loses its meaning as a continuation of OoT's story. The IW is being allowed to dictate the nature of the timeline.

For a theory to be OoT-centric, it has to establish OoT as the focal point for all comparisons to be drawn and allow OoT to dictate the nature of the timeline. As such, the evidence of an OoT-centric timeline revolves around all the main titles since OoT being sequels to OoT (namely MM, TWW and TP) and thus extensions of OoT's story. What we must now determine is how the original 2D games and Four Swords trilogy fit into the OoT-centric timeline when they were not developed with OoT as the focal point.

Before I tackle this, I wish to address another comparison: "Is the IW a description of ALTTP's direct back story?" Since I have made ALTTP's direct back story the focal point of this question, let's look at this from both angles to ground our understanding. For the first angle, ALTTP's direct back story demands that the thief Ganondorf entered the Sacred Realm, was unable to get out, and was subsequently sealed by the Sages. The IW compares perfectly with these requirements, so from that angle we can justify the IW as a description of ALTTP's direct back story. The other angle is "Is ALTTP a direct continuation of the IW?" Well, in the Imprisoning War story, the human thief Ganondorf found the Sacred Realm and took the Triforce. Evil spread across Hyrule, which the Sages had to seal away in the Sacred Realm. From this angle, a comparison of the two events would justify that ALTTP is a direct continuation of the IW story. So in conclusion, the comparisons between the IW and ALTTP reach the same conclusion, no matter which you make the focal point of the comparison. Thus, the relationship between the IW and ALTTP remains unchanged even as new games are added to the timeline, because the comparisons cannot change with the focal point. ALTTP dictates the IW and is itself dictated by the IW.

Now to return to the original question from an OoT-centric perspective: "Is the IW a description of OoT?" In OoT, Ganondorf touched the Triforce and was sealed in the Sacred Realm by the Sages, so from the game alone, we can say yes. But given that TP and TWW were developed with OoT as their focal point, the story of OoT is extended and concluded in a manner that has no reflection in the IW. So for the IW to be a description of OoT, we must ignore the fact that TP and TWW extend the story of OoT, which contradicts the development of an OoT-centric timeline. So this concludes that OoT cannot be the IW (and the IW cannot be OoT) without contradicting the existence of an OoT-centric timeline.

And to finalise this topic, how do the 2D games and the Four Swords trilogy fit into the OoT-centric timeline? OoT establishes itself as the Hylian Age, which then defines the 2D games as distant descendants of OoT, since they take place after the end of the Hylian Age. The Four Swords trilogy neither defines itself as a descendant of the Hylian Age nor does it compare with OoT's story, so its relationship remains ambiguous.

Edited by Raian, 28 April 2008 - 02:29 PM.


#63 CID Farwin

CID Farwin

    Disciple

  • Members
  • 2,935 posts
  • Location:At the threshold
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2008 - 03:45 PM

Whats the Sealing war? Ok consider me ignorant but i have no idea what half of these timeline situations are...

in short: The Seal War (otherwise known as the Imprisoning War) is the part of the ALttP backsotry where a war is fought by the Knights of Hyrule with the seven sages in order to Seal Ganon within the Sacred Realm.

#64 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 28 April 2008 - 05:31 PM

However, in the case of your third point, "power of the gods" is the name of the Triforce, so that tells us they possess Triforce pieces. Even when we are dealing with parallels, we still need to account for context and surrounding evidence.


Oh, I definitely agree. I just don't agree that context and surrounding evidence are always sufficient or conclusive.

And "power of the gods" has been used to refer to the powers granted by the Wind Waker and the Master Sword, so that designation alone doesn't tell us anything. Although this is neither here nor there, since obviously the context errs to the Triforce, but just a side-remark.

I would like to point out that following the original intent of OoT as the IW does not make your theory OoT-centric. In fact, it makes your theory ALTTP-centric because it establishes the IW as the focal point of your theory.


To be more accurate, it makes ALttP subordinate to OoT and its sequels because OoT is the IW. Hence why I say it is OoT-centric.

What we must now determine is how the original 2D games and Four Swords trilogy fit into the OoT-centric timeline when they were not developed with OoT as the focal point.


Most of them, aside from FSA, do not have a focal point in another game; I think we can agree, however, that the overwhelming influence of the worlds of these games is TWW, which is an extension of OoT, as you said.

As for the remainder of your post, I do not share your assumption/view that TP and TWW make the IW being OoT impossible, otherwise we could not have this discussion, and you repeating that you disagree accomplishes nothing.

#65 Showsni

Showsni

    The Fallen

  • Members
  • 13,386 posts
  • Location:Gloucester
  • Gender:Male
  • England

Posted 28 April 2008 - 07:30 PM

The evidence of Hylian blood is actually a lot stronger in ALttP than in OoT.


The evidence is that Hylian blood is thinned and the magical powers gone, and the same is true of the sages. Explain to me why this is the case, and then there are lots of people identifying themselves as "Hylian," and the sages have even more extensive powers? OoT implies just as well that the Triforce hasn't moved. That was the point of the creation story being referenced.


Most of the sages in OoT aren't even Hylian, so they hardly serve as an example of the strength of Hylian blood. Magic seems more commonplace in ALttP; Sahasralah, for example, is adept at telepathy and other such magical skills, despite not being a full sage a la OoT.

The triforce in OoT harly seems undisturbed; it's housed in several layers of complex locks and barriers. It's certainly known about by the people who created these barriers. In ALttP's backstory, its location is unknown; the entrance to the SR is found by chance; the triforce is presumably unguarded. Which seems the more natural state to you?

And TMC is the game in which the world feels almost as modern as in TWW, and yet it is the very first game in the timeline - so what?
The Zelda world is an anachronistic world, because Miyamoto loves Western and other developers love the other epochs that have sneaked into some games.

TWW's going with a pirate theme (which no one ever complained about, because of the Flood changing the society) is pure coincidence because they simply wanted the game to feature a sea and sailing - voilą, 17th century here we go.

And how is it that the last games in the timeline, LoZ+AoL, are those that stick most perfectly with the middle ages?

Btw, an often overlooked fact is that ALttP has mailboxes (which of course have their justification, with postmen being around since as early as TMC), while OoT has not.

All of this shows that seeming characteristics of a certain real world epoch have no chance as evidence at all.


That's not the order they're in in my timeline, though... I put ALttP, LoZ and AoL before OoT. Certainly, putting TMC quite early jars my sensibilities; but as you say, the developers don't always stick with a steadily developing world. Doin the best we can, though, ALttP comes early, then civilisation is more advanced by TMC's time, but before LoZ some clearly catastrophic event has reduced civilisation to people living in caves. People are rebuilding in AoL, and then advance steadilyish towards OoT, TWW and PH.

It's not well known. It's a legend that only the royal family and the eldest Hyruleans know of.


Exactly. Known. In ALttP's backstory, it wasn't know at all.


#66 Jumbie

Jumbie

    Language Freak

  • ZL Staff
  • 1,023 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Gender:Female

Posted 28 April 2008 - 10:09 PM

Wait a minute, I can't remember any church in TP, could someone tell me where is this church?

In Kakariko Village, next to the graveyard. Leonard is its priest. (NoA's sanctuary, shaman, and Renado were mistranslations.)

Whats the Sealing war? Ok consider me ignorant but i have no idea what half of these timeline situations are...

In case you have the time, you could read through this.

So for the IW to be a description of OoT, we must ignore the fact that TP and TWW extend the story of OoT, which contradicts the development of an OoT-centric timeline.

Or we simply add a third timeline in which ALttP extends the story of OoT. Now, how easy is that.

That's not the order they're in in my timeline, though... I put ALttP, LoZ and AoL before OoT.

Well, we're generally trying to find out creator intent, so...

before LoZ some clearly catastrophic event has reduced civilisation to people living in caves.

That was Ganon's army corps ravaging Hyrule.

Exactly. Known. In ALttP's backstory, it wasn't know at all.

Because you know exactly what the royal family at the time of the Seal War knows and does not know? The text speaks of the common Hyrulian folk - the ones who started the bloodshed for the Sacred Realm. The King of Hyrule certainly didn't have the Hylians participate in the search for the SR, but rather act as a defending party of Castle Town, where the entrance to the SR actually is.

#67 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 28 April 2008 - 11:25 PM

If you were going to tell a story about the Sages' Seal, you would explain its origins no matter what, assuming you knew them. It's illogical to say that you would only include the Imprisoning War story if the story you were telling had complete continuity, because it's necessary to explain where the Sages' Seal came from, as well as setting the stage for the story from the player's perspective.


What the hell is this jibberish? Do you even know what you're trying to prove? This is completely meaningless.

I never said anything to this end. It's precisely because I won't say that that I even go with the two Ganon theory.


I know you didn't say that. My point is that you're a hypocrite for not saying it. You SHOULD be saying that, based on how you're treating ALttP, because that was certainly the implication at the time. But you know that it makes your theory wrong.

ALttP COULD allow for TWW's events, and should, because of the intent of OoT, and yet you think it's perfectly okay to screw with that for the sake of your one thing (Ganon).


Posted Image

You can't be this dense. Grow up.

1) The Triforce was in the Sacred Realm from the time the goddesses put it there at the beginning of the world to the time of the Imprisoning War. That's why it's "still there" when it begins? This is fact, and it is stated precisely as quoted.


No, it's not. There is no such statement. On the other hand, what IS explicitly stated as a fact, is that Ganon is the one from the IW. And that Ganon couldn't leave the SR between the IW and ALttP. How the hell can you not see the problem here? You're stating that as a fact, but ignoring all the other things ALttP states as fact that you're still contradicting, and those are much more important problems because the story DOESN'T MAKE SENSE without them. ALttP's story is a flat out lie, the way you seem to be putting it. It's not a lie to say that the Triforce could have left the Sacred Realm before the IW. What you're claiming to be a stated fact ISN'T. What you're claiming to be mere theory is FACT in the game. You don't even seem to comprehend the rest of my post, because you have this insane delusion that your word is law and nothing else matters.

What ALttP is missing, according to you, is a Ganon, because Ganon dies in TP and TWW, but there's a Ganon in FSA.

So explain to me what's missing.


How about a semblance of fucking logic? Everyone other than you can clearly see the details you're ignoring in this statement.

ALttP shares a Ganon with the IW, this is a stated fact, more so than anything you claim to be, and in the same game, so not holding any less significance as you say it does. Also, the IW hasn't happened yet in FSA. Ganon is totally unknown and appears for the first time. He still needs to enter the SR and touch the Triforce, followed by the sages casting a seal, as per ALttP, which he clearly has not yet.

If you're going by the GBA ALttP, then you're still forced to accept the fact that it does NOT allow for OoT's story at all. It still states things which are wildly inconsistent with OoT. I assumed we were all sensible enough to use the Japanese manual, and above all, the GAME ITSELF. ALttP's GBA manual was an abridged rewriting of the SNES versions. It is NOT in any way a clarification of any details. The story is the same as it ever was, it's the 1991 plot. The Japanese manual is still the best and most detailed source, and yet you're prioritising something that still completely contradicts you because the Triforce wasn't supposed to have left the SR at all. And because ALttP's GBA manual still blatantly contradicts OoT.

In any case, there is a clear contradiction of facts here, because ALttP states as a fact that the same Ganon is in both games. So how do we decide what is more important? Well...

1. Pick the one that's in the game itself, not the manual.

2. Pick the one that is consistent across all versions of the game and known to be written by the actual developers, not a translator.

3. Pick the one that is required for the story to make sense in any way.

4. Pick the one that is consistent with the most other details.

Hm, I wonder which one we should go with. Oh wait, you're still blind to any other facts in ALttP other than one totally unnecessary one. If something's going to change, let it be the one thing that has no bearing on the story if it changes. The Triforce left the Sacred Realm (nobody having actually entered it before the IW), and came back at some point, and at the time of ALttP, nobody ever knew it happened because the Triforce had never actually been used before, nor had its existence in Hyrule ever been made public. It's not even a problem, it still makes perfect sense. Never mind that you're blowing the importance of a single thing totally out of proportion, and acting like it can combat every other fact.

Also, I suppose someone needs to go and find the GBA ALttP Japanese manual so we can translate it now... Of course, it makes no difference, because if we trust that manual as the most recent and hence most accurate account of the IW, it still clearly isn't OoT.

By the way, ALttP also calls its backstory events LEGEND, meaning that they are known in Hyrule to some extent - but at the same time, details like whether or not the Triforce had left the Sacred Realm before would be both unknown and completely irrelevant. AND even if they weren't, nobody ever knew that the Triforce had left the Sacred Realm, so it wouldn't need to be forgotten. One fucking word doesn't change all of that. On the other hand, any claim that those events weren't known at all is unfounded crap.

Edited by Impossible, 28 April 2008 - 11:34 PM.


#68 rayne85

rayne85

    Barbarian

  • Members
  • 281 posts
  • Location:Queensland, Australia
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2008 - 03:08 AM

Thanks Jumbie

#69 Ize

Ize

    Bard

  • Members
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2008 - 03:11 AM

The triforce in OoT harly seems undisturbed; it's housed in several layers of complex locks and barriers. It's certainly known about by the people who created these barriers. In ALttP's backstory, its location is unknown; the entrance to the SR is found by chance; the triforce is presumably unguarded. Which seems the more natural state to you?


In OoT the temple of time has locks and barriers. It's certainly known about by the people who created these barriers. The MS is guarded, as well as the triforce.
The master sword is resting inside the ruins of the temple of time, inside the sacred grove in TP. Its location is unknown to most. The master sword is presumably unguarded.

Does that mean OoT comes after TP? No, it only means legends and locks can fade over time.

And in ALttP's backstory, its location is stated to be unknown by the population. The royal family's knowledge of the entrance is never stated. In fact, the king and th sages were able to seal Ganon in the sacred realm, and they did it by opening their own portal in the middle of a battle, so they probably knew about the sacred realm and all. Even if this isn't the case and they sealed a normal portal or whatever, my first argument still stands.

#70 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 06:46 AM

What the hell is this jibberish? Do you even know what you're trying to prove? This is completely meaningless.


It's exactly your logic, except substituting my position.

You SHOULD be saying that, based on how you're treating ALttP, because that was certainly the implication at the time.


No, I shouldn't.

I'm talking about the implications in 1998 and 2002.

No, it's not. There is no such statement.


Yes, there is. Read the ALttP GBA manual.

Link

On the other hand, what IS explicitly stated as a fact, is that Ganon is the one from the IW.


Where? Show me this "explicit statement."

And that Ganon couldn't leave the SR between the IW and ALttP.


He did. It's called "Agahnim." XD

He couldn't break the seal so he could rule the cosmos, though.

If you're going by the GBA ALttP, then you're still forced to accept the fact that it does NOT allow for OoT's story at all. It still states things which are wildly inconsistent with OoT. I assumed we were all sensible enough to use the Japanese manual, and above all, the GAME ITSELF.

ALttP's GBA manual was an abridged rewriting of the SNES versions.


Actually, LoZ and AoL GBA manuals are abridged rewritings of the NES versions. This is a significant trimming down of the story.

And because ALttP's GBA manual still blatantly contradicts OoT.


No, it doesn't. In fact, it fits perfectly with OoT.

In any case, there is a clear contradiction of facts here, because ALttP states as a fact that the same Ganon is in both games. So how do we decide what is more important? Well...

1. Pick the one that's in the game itself, not the manual.

2. Pick the one that is consistent across all versions of the game and known to be written by the actual developers, not a translator.

3. Pick the one that is required for the story to make sense in any way.

4. Pick the one that is consistent with the most other details.


I'll go with option 5: pick the one that goes with most recent developer intent.

i.e., OoT, GBA revisions to match OoT, FSA

The Triforce left the Sacred Realm (nobody having actually entered it before the IW), and came back at some point, and at the time of ALttP, nobody ever knew it happened because the Triforce had never actually been used before, nor had its existence in Hyrule ever been made public.


So it's okay to say that the Triforce had been used before the IW and returned, but it's not okay to say that Ganon had left and returned to the realm before ALttP?

By the way, ALttP also calls its backstory events LEGEND, meaning that they are known in Hyrule to some extent - but at the same time, details like whether or not the Triforce had left the Sacred Realm before would be both unknown and completely irrelevant.


Yes.

This hurts my theory... how?

Obviously, according to you, the only legend people know is the IW legend.

#71 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 29 April 2008 - 10:12 AM

To be more accurate, it makes ALttP subordinate to OoT and its sequels because OoT is the IW. Hence why I say it is OoT-centric.


But it isn't OoT-centric. The nature of MM, TP and TWW in the timeline is dictated by OoT, as they are extensions of OoT's story. But then you say OoT is itself dictated by its original intent as the IW, which defies a clear separation in the evidence.

The IW's existence as a description of OoT doesn't go any farther than OoT. It doesn't account for the existence of MM, TWW or any games released after OoT. And likewise, Zelda games released after OoT don't account for the IW. They refer back to OoT and stop at that point. The timeline evidence released before and after OoT is clearly separate from each other and does not account for each other, which defines OoT as the cut-off point in the development of the Zelda timeline. This defines the timeline as OoT-centric.

You choose the IW as the cut-off point, which separates it from ALTTP. But that doesn't make any sense given that the IW actively accounts for the events in ALTTP (not to mention that the two events are referenced in the exact same source).

Edited by Raian, 29 April 2008 - 10:28 AM.


#72 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 10:40 AM

But it isn't OoT-centric. The nature of MM, TP and TWW in the timeline is dictated by OoT, as they are extensions of OoT's story. But then you say OoT is itself dictated by its original intent as the IW, which defies a clear separation in the evidence.


I say that ALttP is now also dictated by OoT's tole as the IW. OoT and TP take the IW stories and wars of the Sacred Realm stories, respectively, and realign them with the modern continuity.

But that doesn't make any sense given that the IW actively accounts for the events in ALTTP (not to mention that the two events are referenced in the exact same source).


FSA is more recent, and ALSO accounts for events in ALttP - at least, the ones that TWW made impossible (it reintroduces the missing Ganon).

Remember, it is Ganon that is the primary problem with OoT=IW. FSA remedies this problem.

#73 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 29 April 2008 - 10:51 AM

I say that ALttP is now also dictated by OoT's tole as the IW. OoT and TP take the IW stories and wars of the Sacred Realm stories, respectively, and realign them with the modern continuity.


Which makes your theory IW-centric, since you've decided the new series of events begins with and revolves around the IW.

FSA is more recent, and ALSO accounts for events in ALttP - at least, the ones that TWW made impossible (it reintroduces the missing Ganon).

Remember, it is Ganon that is the primary problem with OoT=IW. FSA remedies this problem.


It has always been an assumption that FSA was designed with a preconceived relationship with ALTTP. Not only have we been told that ALTTP references were for fan appeal and that the storyline was in constant development over the course of game development, but also FSA's ending does not even lead into ALTTP's beginning. You have Ganon but a massive plot-hole still left to fill.

The separation of the evidence before and after OoT clearly defines the OoT-centric timeline. There is no separation of evidence within ALTTP; that's a discrepancy you created to justify your theory.

Edited by Raian, 29 April 2008 - 10:59 AM.


#74 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:15 AM

Which makes your theory IW-centric, since you've decided the new series of events begins with and revolves around the IW.


I don't see what you're arguing, here.

It's IW-evocative, but the context of the IW depends entirely on the context set by OoT.

FSA is more recent, and ALSO accounts for events in ALttP - at least, the ones that TWW made impossible (it reintroduces the missing Ganon).

Remember, it is Ganon that is the primary problem with OoT=IW. FSA remedies this problem.


It has always been an assumption that FSA was designed with a preconceived relationship with ALTTP.

Not only have we been told that ALTTP references were for fan appeal and that the storyline was in constant development over the course of game development, but also FSA's ending does not even lead into ALTTP's beginning.


1) All references are for fan appeal. The timeline is for fan appeal.

2) The storyline was in constant development over the course of the game, just like every other Zelda game. I'm examining the final product.

3) ALttP begins with Ganon sealed; FSA seals Ganon. And even considering this, no game leads PERFECTLY into ALttP's beginning, so we have to assume SOMETHING happens in between. I'm just assuming that something is not the IW that has been turned into a game already.

#75 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:43 AM

It's IW-evocative, but the context of the IW depends entirely on the context set by OoT.


OoT does not set the context for the Imprisoning War according to your theory; a developer comment sets that context. But that comment also establishes the IW as the focal point in the relationship between OoT and the IW. The comment was "OoT was developed as the IW", not "The IW is a description of OoT". It isn't surprising that the developer attached priority to the IW, because ALTTP was the standard for the series before OoT was released. When that comment was released, the Zelda series was ALTTP-centric.

But here's the thing. OoT's popularity encouraged the developers to make every main title an expansion of OoT's story; officially making the Zelda timeline OoT-centric from that point on. Since OoT, Zelda games neither touch ALTTP's story or the relationship between OoT and the IW. What you use as the centrepiece for your theory is a developer comment that was released before the timeline became OoT-centric. It's out-of-date and not relevant to a timeline where the events of OoT are the single focus.

1) All references are for fan appeal. The timeline is for fan appeal.


Straw man. The timeline is actively distinguished from simple nostalgia, which gives us the ability to treat references towards the two elements as separate.

3) ALttP begins with Ganon sealed; FSA seals Ganon. And even considering this, no game leads PERFECTLY into ALttP's beginning, so we have to assume SOMETHING happens in between. I'm just assuming that something is not the IW that has been turned into a game already.


Establishing a connection between two games requires one event to relate to the next. Ganon was trapped in the Four Sword, which has no meaningful relationship with the Triforce or the Sacred Realm. If the developers wanted to connect the two games together, they would not have made the ending so substantially different from ALTTP.

Edited by Raian, 29 April 2008 - 01:07 PM.


#76 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 01:14 PM

OoT does not set the context for the Imprisoning War according to your theory; a developer comment sets that context.


A developer quote tells us that OoT sets the context for the IW. OoT does it all by itself, though

But here's the thing. Since OoT's release, the timeline revolves around OoT. The Zelda series expands simply upon OoT's story; not ALTTP's story or the relationship between OoT and the IW. What you use as the centrepiece for your theory is a developer comment that was released before the timeline became OoT-centric. It's out-of-date and not relevant to a timeline where the events of OoT are the single focus.


What I use for the centrepiece for my theory is OoT itself, and the games developed subsequently and the context they set with respect to ALttP. The developer comment has nothing to do with my theory, other than to prove that OoT was intended to fill the place I have it fill.

The timeline is actively distinguished from simple nostalgia, which gives us the ability to treat references towards the two elements as separate.


Things were put into TP from OoT to appeal to OoT vets.
Things were put into LA, OoT, FSA, and TP from ALttP to appeal to ALttP vets.

Now, TP was obviously said to follow OoT, but how many games, not made by Capcom (OoS/OoA), have evoked prior games in terms of story, pantheon of characters, or general style without actually being related to them in the timeline or without these evocations being actual references?

3) ALttP begins with Ganon sealed; FSA seals Ganon. And even considering this, no game leads PERFECTLY into ALttP's beginning, so we have to assume SOMETHING happens in between. I'm just assuming that something is not the IW that has been turned into a game already.


Ganon was trapped in the Four Sword, which has no meaningful relationship with the Triforce or the Sacred Realm. If the developers wanted to connect the two games together, they would not have made the ending so substantially different from ALTTP.


They made TP's context substantially different from that of the Child Ending of OoT.

But that's, wait, because they changed the story halfway through.

Which is what happened to FSA, according to you, yes?

#77 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 29 April 2008 - 01:28 PM

A developer quote tells us that OoT sets the context for the IW. OoT does it all by itself, though.

What I use for the centrepiece for my theory is OoT itself, and the games developed subsequently and the context they set with respect to ALttP. The developer comment has nothing to do with my theory, other than to prove that OoT was intended to fill the place I have it fill.


With the flooding of Hyrule? Don't be ridiculous.

OoT's development as the IW (and thus all connections between OoT and the IW) was the product of an ALTTP-centric perspective of the timeline (which means ALTTP was the story by which OoT's story was compared and thus defined).
Since the timeline has become the product of an OoT-centric perspective (meaning that games are compared with and thus defined by their relationship to OoT), no games make any contextual reference to ALTTP or the IW. OoT has been the focus for which the stories of subsequent Zelda games were developed.

To assume that all Zelda games released after OoT are contextually relative to ALTTP assumes that an ALTTP-centric perspective still dictates the timeline. But the evidence supporting an existing ALTTP-centric perspective is minimal, if not non-existant altogether. You have Ganon alive at the end of FSA; that's it.

This is pretty much why we have an arcs system. One arc defines events with ALTTP at its centre (the 2D arc). One arc defines events with OoT at its centre (the 3D arc). One arc defines events with FS at its centre (the FS trilogy). Your theory says that ALTTP remains the centre of the 3D arc, which means all Zelda games in that arc are relative to ALTTP, not OoT. OoT is itself only defined by its existence as the IW. This defeats the concept of an OoT-centric timeline and a 3D timeline arc.

Things were put into TP from OoT to appeal to OoT vets.
Things were put into LA, OoT, FSA, and TP from ALttP to appeal to ALttP vets.

Now, TP was obviously said to follow OoT, but how many games, not made by Capcom (OoS/OoA), have evoked prior games in terms of story, pantheon of characters, or general style without actually being related to them in the timeline or without these evocations being actual references?


In the quotation in which it was said fan references were included in FSA, the torchlights were specifically mentioned as an example of these fan references. Explain how the torchlights are representative of a timeline connection.

They made TP's context substantially different from that of the Child Ending of OoT.

But that's, wait, because they changed the story halfway through.

Which is what happened to FSA, according to you, yes?


I ditched that point, so I don't know why you're responding to it again. FSA has no direct connection to ALTTP; you have a collection of parallels which may or may not relate to the timeline and may or may not relate specifically to ALTTP. The ending of FSA has absolutely no relationship with the beginning of ALTTP. All you have is the existence of Ganon, which is the bare minimum of evidence you can possibly have to connect the two games together.

Edited by Raian, 29 April 2008 - 02:14 PM.


#78 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 03:02 PM

With the flooding of Hyrule? Don't be ridiculous.


Again, this is only ridiculous if you continue to go with the misunderstanding that I'm saying that the games were designed around ALttP, rather than ALttP having been hammered to fit the new games.

OoT's development as the IW (and thus all connections between OoT and the IW) was the product of an ALTTP-centric perspective of the timeline (which means ALTTP was the story by which OoT's story was compared and thus defined).


Correct. OoT's development looked heavily to ALttP.

Since the timeline has become the product of an OoT-centric perspective (meaning that games are compared with and thus defined by their relationship to OoT), no games make any contextual reference to ALTTP or the IW. OoT has been the focus for which the stories of subsequent Zelda games were developed.


Unless OoT is still the IW, in which case all references to OoT are developments on the post-IW.

TP, at least, makes one solid, concrete, plot-related reference to ALttP, and that is in the casting of the wars prior to OoT as wars to conquer the Sacred Realm. If anything, this strengthens OoT=IW.

To assume that all Zelda games released after OoT are contextually relative to ALTTP


I don't. I assume that ALttP is contextually relative to all the Zelda games released after OoT. The only game I see as being "centered" on ALttP in recent years is FSA. TP makes passing references to the IW when discussing Ganon and everything else prior to his invasion.

In the quotation in which it was said fan references were included in FSA, the torchlights were specifically mentioned as an example of these fan references. Explain how the torchlights are representative of a timeline connection.


This is a red herring. This theory has nothing to do with torches. It has to do with plot.

FSA has no direct connection to ALTTP


TMC has no "direct connection" to FS, but that doesn't exclude it as a prequel.

All you have is the existence of Ganon, which is the bare minimum of evidence you can possibly have to connect the two games together.


I have:

1) Ganon having become the king of darkness (Ganon has become the King of Darkness prior to ALttP)
2) Sealed away (Ganon is stuck in the sages' seal in ALttP)
3) By the Four Sword (the Four Sword is broken in ALttP)
4) The christening of the Forest of Light as the Lost Woods.
5) Thieves from Kakariko village having vacated to the Lost Woods (thieves are said to have once inhabited Kakariko, and are seen in the Lost Woods in ALttP)
6) The renewed extermination of the Knights of Hyrule (Link is the last of the knights' bloodline in ALttP)

And these are only the concrete, ALttP-specific references (excepting points 1 and 2).

TP barely has as much solid plot-related evidence connecting it to OoT.

#79 Jumbie

Jumbie

    Language Freak

  • ZL Staff
  • 1,023 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 April 2008 - 04:28 PM

TP, at least, makes one solid, concrete, plot-related reference to ALttP, and that is in the casting of the wars prior to OoT as wars to conquer the Sacred Realm. If anything, this strengthens OoT=IW.

That's correct, an undeniable fact. And the best thing is, since the wars took place before OoT began, both ALttP and TP can refer to them using similar wording without that dictating they have to be in the same timeline.

TP makes passing references to the IW when discussing Ganon and everything else prior to his invasion.

Also true. Leaning on these two points, plus the Creation myth being repeated by Lanayru, me and Lex recognise TP as the most recent proof that ALttP's SW is still referring to events that happened around the time of OoT. This just cannot be denied without purposefully blindfolding oneself.

For the heck of it, ALttP is Aonuma's favourite Zelda game, he'll 3D-port it if Nintendo gives him the chance, and along with the heap of ALttP references in TP, it's dead-sure to say that he does think it's still a core point of the timeline!

#80 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 April 2008 - 04:37 PM

1) Ganon having become the king of darkness (Ganon has become the King of Darkness prior to ALttP)

Ganon is the King of Darkness in every game he appears in.

2) Sealed away (Ganon is stuck in the sages' seal in ALttP)

Different seal, occurs in a completely different manner, cast by the Maidens, not Wise Men/Sages, with the aid of Zelda and Link.

3) By the Four Sword (the Four Sword is broken in ALttP)

If the backstory of Four Swords occurs after ALttP, this is not an issue.

4) The christening of the Forest of Light as the Lost Woods.

The Lost Woods exists in a whole shedload of games, so unless you're suggesting FSA goes before any other game involving the Lost Woods, this is moot. Also, notice how the Lost Woods becomes a 'forest of light' after you get the Master Sword in ALttP?

5) Thieves from Kakariko village having vacated to the Lost Woods (thieves are said to have once inhabited Kakariko, and are seen in the Lost Woods in ALttP)

You cannot use the placement of thieves as evidence. Thieves are thieves. They can move wherever they like at any point in time. This is beyond meaningless as a piece of 'evidence'.

6) The renewed extermination of the Knights of Hyrule (Link is the last of the knights' bloodline in ALttP)

It's a reference, much like PH's Cobble Kingdom is a reference. The Knights of Hyrule in FSA have a completely different role than in the IW, and there's no indication that Link is related to them.

TP barely has as much solid plot-related evidence connecting it to OoT.

That's just plain wrong.

#81 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 05:28 PM

Jumbie: If anything, the fact that Aonuma wants to do a remake of ALttP (when he has himself said that he hopes to make the storylines of the games more clear) probably speaks for the fact that it needs realignment with the timeline to account for the branches of OoT, not that the intentions involving OoT=IW have been reversed. Wouldn't you say so?

Ganon is the King of Darkness in every game he appears in.


Ganon is not the King of Darkness wielding the Trident in his blue demon form creating magic portals in every game he appears in.

Different seal, occurs in a completely different manner, cast by the Maidens, not Wise Men/Sages, with the aid of Zelda and Link.


It's the status of being sealed I'm concerned with. I take the PotFS as either canon or strong evidence of developer intent, so I'd say Ganon being sealed in the Four Sword inevitably leads to him being sealed in the Sacred Realm, either because that's where the seal the maidens added places him, or because the Four Sword itself is brought there (as it is in the Pyramid in ALttP GBA).

If the backstory of Four Swords occurs after ALttP, this is not an issue.


If.

The Lost Woods exists in a whole shedload of games


Not in the northwestern corner of the map.

Also, notice how the Lost Woods becomes a 'forest of light' after you get the Master Sword in ALttP?


Yep!

You cannot use the placement of thieves as evidence. Thieves are thieves. They can move wherever they like at any point in time. This is beyond meaningless as a piece of 'evidence'.


It's a positive correlation with the thieves referenced and featured in ALttP. I'd say that's quite meaningful.

It's a reference, much like PH's Cobble Kingdom is a reference. The Knights of Hyrule in FSA have a completely different role than in the IW, and there's no indication that Link is related to them.


1) PH's Cobble Kingdom is a reference to what? If anything, I'd say they might just could be the "wise pyramid builders" the Zuna are descended from, given their architecture.

2) The Knights of Hyrule do lots of things each time they're formed. ALttP's fought off Ganon's armies; OoT's guard the kingdom (and presumably are the ones referenced in ALttP); TWW's assault Ganon's Tower; and FSA's guarded the royal jewels, which are the four elements.

That's just plain wrong.


Ganondorf being in TP and the Triforce-bearers having their parts are more significant, but less plentiful.

#82 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 April 2008 - 06:06 PM

Ganon is not the King of Darkness wielding the Trident in his blue demon form creating magic portals in every game he appears in.

No, but he is in every game set after ALttP.

Chicken. Egg.

It's the status of being sealed I'm concerned with. I take the PotFS as either canon or strong evidence of developer intent, so I'd say Ganon being sealed in the Four Sword inevitably leads to him being sealed in the Sacred Realm, either because that's where the seal the maidens added places him, or because the Four Sword itself is brought there (as it is in the Pyramid in ALttP GBA).

Except that this totally rewrites the IW, way, way more than OoT ever did. You might as well just find a new placement for FS and FSA, much less fanfic/retcon/random guesses that they never would have expected the players to consider.

If.

Yes, if.

Not in the northwestern corner of the map.

Who gives a flying fuck? If forests somehow move, or are renamed, or are unnamed, or are completely inconsistent, how the fucking hell can you claim it's name or placement as a piece of evidence? How?

Yep!

Then why are you so bloody selective with evidence? You know damn well that half of the things you're suggesting can easily be taken in the exact opposite manner, yet you just group them together and call them collective evidence when you know full well that it's hypocritcally twisted logic. Why do you waste your time doing this when you know exactly what you're doing?

It's a positive correlation with the thieves referenced and featured in ALttP. I'd say that's quite meaningful.

Bollocks. There are thieves in Kakariko in FSA, and there are thieves in the Lost Woods in ALttP. Neither event signifies whether FSA occurs before or after ALttP, or even if they occur in a similar timeframe at all.

1) PH's Cobble Kingdom is a reference to what?

If you need to ask, you're a moron. That or you just need to play PH again because you've clearly entirely forgotten.

2) The Knights of Hyrule do lots of things each time they're formed. ALttP's fought off Ganon's armies; OoT's guard the kingdom (and presumably are the ones referenced in ALttP); TWW's assault Ganon's Tower; and FSA's guarded the royal jewels, which are the four elements.

Sorry, but the Knights of Hyrule, those who bare that title, are only mentioned in ALttP, and one of the phrases used to describe them is also used to describe the knights in FSA. They are not mentioned in OoT or TWW, although there are obviously some knights in OoT somewhere. Link is the closest thing to a knight that we actually see, though.

Ganondorf being in TP and the Triforce-bearers having their parts are more significant, but less plentiful.

I would claim there are a lot more references to OoT in TP than you're suggesting, alongside those more 'significant' references. In fact, there's a whole bucketload of references, and I'm not gonna sit here and list them all for you, because frankly they're hard to miss. They're pretty definate about TP being a sequel too, much like the OoT references in TWW, although they're a tad more subtle.

Edited by Fyxe, 29 April 2008 - 06:12 PM.


#83 Ize

Ize

    Bard

  • Members
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2008 - 06:17 PM

But the wole OoT=IW thing means that ALttP takes place in the adult timeline, which is absolutely absurd. A new Hyrule would have to be formed (the whole pint of WW is that this will not happen) with similar geaography, the exact same names and lore. In fact this point has been made and debated in countless threads alrady, so maybe I'm being redundant.
In the child timeline we don't have all these problems...but oh well.

Regarding FSA's Ganon, he was probably revived because they needed to link ALttP and LoZ since the first one is supposed to be a prquel, but Ganon dies anyways. So they use elemenst from ALttP (trident) to revive him, yet they keep him in the light world (where he is in LoZ) and with the four sword (from which he escapes, and we get the white sword).

FSA's developers couldn't possibly know that ganondorf would die at the end of TP, so it's strange that they would revive him. This would imply that FSA comes AFTER ALttP, and the knights of hyrule are maybe Link's (from ALttP) ancestors or something. In that case, FSA Ganon wasn't revived to start the IW, but to go on and appear on LoZ.

Besides, FSA Ganon becomes the King of Darkness or evil or whatever when he touches the trident...what? is he going to lose the title before the IW and then somehow regain it when he touches the triforce (because ALttP makes it clear Ganon the king of darkness was born when Ganondorf touched the triforce)?

#84 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 06:34 PM

No, but he is in every game set after ALttP.


Or, in my case, every game after (not including) TWW. :]

Except that this totally rewrites the IW, way, way more than OoT ever did.


No it doesn't. The IW can still happen exactly as is.

If forests somehow move, or are renamed, or are unnamed, or are completely inconsistent, how the fucking hell can you claim it's name or placement as a piece of evidence? How?


Because this time it is consistent with ALttP?

There are thieves in Kakariko in FSA, and there are thieves in the Lost Woods in ALttP. Neither event signifies whether FSA occurs before or after ALttP, or even if they occur in a similar timeframe at all.


There are thieves in Kakariko in FSA, and they are seen in the Lost Woods at the end of the game.
There are thieves in the Lost Woods in ALttP, and there used to be thieves in Kakariko.

Use your brain.

Sorry, but the Knights of Hyrule, those who bare that title, are only mentioned in ALttP, and one of the phrases used to describe them is also used to describe the knights in FSA. They are not mentioned in OoT or TWW, although there are obviously some knights in OoT somewhere. Link is the closest thing to a knight that we actually see, though.


"This is a big, heavy shield just like the ones Hylian Knights use. It can stand up to flame attacks!" (OoT)
"Long ago, Ganon's Tower was an impenetrable fortress that not even the daring and dauntless Knights of Hyrule could hope to assail." (TWW)

*cough*

I would claim there are a lot more references to OoT in TP than you're suggesting, alongside those more 'significant' references.


Are any of them plot-related, and ONLY applicable to OoT, or are they just the carrying over of things like the Hylian Shield?

I'll MAYBE give you Zora's Domain freezing over causing the water level in Lake Hylia to drop, although it's obviously not a related event.
And MAYBE the Temple of Time, too.

Although, if I'm going to do that, there are a lot more references of that type to ALttP in FSA.

A new Hyrule would have to be formed (the whole pint of WW is that this will not happen) with similar geaography, the exact same names and lore.


TFPRR seems to pose this as being the case, as it features a mountain that used to be Death Mountain, "Lon Lon Meadows," and the Deku Forest (complete with the Deku Tree), all on... islands?

Of course, we can debate whether or not TFPRR has any bearing on the series all day.



To the rest of your post:

-My timeline has it the other way around, linking LoZ to ALttP.
-Ganon already died in TWW, so it's not really that odd that he would be revived, especially considering the IW is supposed to have happened in Adult OoT, and the Adult timeline would otherwise have a dead Ganon.
-Ganon was born in OoT when Ganondorf touched the Triforce. FSA Ganon becomes the new King of Darkness as a result of the Trident.

Edited by LionHarted, 29 April 2008 - 06:37 PM.


#85 rayne85

rayne85

    Barbarian

  • Members
  • 281 posts
  • Location:Queensland, Australia
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2008 - 10:20 PM

An interesting timeline theory that i have just witnessed (see here: http://forums.legend...showtopic=15300 ref Restrospective Part 6)

MC - OoT which then splits into two timelines, Hyrule A and Hyrule B, Hyrule A is the timeline in which link returns to his time and warns the king, Hyrule B is the timeline where Ganondorf is defeated. This seems logical, as link returning to his own time and forewarning the people creates a paradox.

So we'll look at it like this:

TMC / OoT - Hyrule A: MM / LA / LoZ / Z2 / FSA / AlltP
TMC / OoT - Hyrule B: WW / PH

It is also speculated that the twin games, Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons fit in at parallel places at the end of the timelines.

If you watch part 6 of the restrospective, they explain the links between well, link :P. However they leave TP in the lurch as at the time it hadnt been released yet, but going with their theory of things, i'm going to speculate that TP comes in somewhere around the last half of Hyrule A. As it deals with Ganondorf being sealed away (again) and then showing nothing but his defeated figure at the end (and the fact that this is supposed to be the last Zelda game in the series, pending retro studios and what they come up with *prays for something decent* but i'm not holding my breath) and the closing off of the Twlight Realm, which is unheard of in the previous games.

#86 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 30 April 2008 - 05:52 AM

No it doesn't. The IW can still happen exactly as is.

You're claiming the IW occurs after Ganon has already been sealed in the Four Sword, then?

Because this time it is consistent with ALttP?

I see, so you're basically using highly selective and hypocritical 'evidence'. Evidence only counts as evidence when it suits your theory, right? Yeah, this is classic stuff. There's been people like you throughout this forum's history, all arguing their own little things that nobody else believes.

There are thieves in Kakariko in FSA, and they are seen in the Lost Woods at the end of the game.
There are thieves in the Lost Woods in ALttP, and there used to be thieves in Kakariko.

BLIND'S THIEVES USED TO BE IN KAKARIKO, AND THEN THEY'RE IN THE DARK WORLD. Those are the thieves that are being spoken about! How can you be so agonisingly short-sighted? The thieves in the Lost Woods are unrelated, and so are the thieves in FSA. The thieves in FSA are being influenced by the Dark World.

Use your brain.

...Use yours, you arrogant pain-in-the-ass.

"This is a big, heavy shield just like the ones Hylian Knights use. It can stand up to flame attacks!" (OoT)

Standard knights are a bit different from the 'Family of Knights'.

"Long ago, Ganon's Tower was an impenetrable fortress that not even the daring and dauntless Knights of Hyrule could hope to assail." (TWW)

Without a Japanese translation, that means bog all, really. But frankly, this is entirely irrelevant to FSA. I don't deny that the Knights of Hyrule's existence in the OoT time period anyway. We just never see them.

*cough*

*thumps him on the back*

Better? Good.

Are any of them plot-related, and ONLY applicable to OoT, or are they just the carrying over of things like the Hylian Shield?

I'll MAYBE give you Zora's Domain freezing over causing the water level in Lake Hylia to drop, although it's obviously not a related event.
And MAYBE the Temple of Time, too.

Although, if I'm going to do that, there are a lot more references of that type to ALttP in FSA.

And it is at this point that I put my head in my hands and pity myself for even bothering to talk to you. You can go back to arguing with Impossible now. I can't be arsed. @.@

#87 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 30 April 2008 - 02:06 PM

I'm going to respond to Lex's points in a new topic, but there is one thing that needs to be explained here.

The war for the Sacred Realm features in the history of the Child Timeline as much as it features in the history of the Adult Timeline. And funnily enough, it appeared as a story-specific plot point for Twilight Princess, the game that ultimately established the Child Timeline as a continuing progression of Hyrule.

Your argument is that TWW and FSA exist to connect OoT to ALTTP as the Imprisoning War, and my argument stands that the evidence in TWW and FSA does not validate such a context that you assume. The war for the Sacred Realm has no bearing on this argument.

#88 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 02 May 2008 - 01:21 PM

The war for the Sacred Realm features in the history of the Child Timeline as much as it features in the history of the Adult Timeline. And funnily enough, it appeared as a story-specific plot point for Twilight Princess, the game that ultimately established the Child Timeline as a continuing progression of Hyrule.


Twilight Princess plays off Ganondorf using Zant to escape the Twilight Realm, where he was sealed. This is a condition that only appears in the Child Timeline.

The events of the prolonged wars therefore are used to provide part of Zant's motivation and the history of the Twili tribe, the Mirror of Twilight, and the Light Spirits.

The prolonged wars themselves, however, have already been referenced at least twice, in ALttP and OoT. TP simply ties them in to its direct plot in a more substantial way than before in the absence of the Imprisoning War story.

Your argument is that TWW and FSA exist to connect OoT to ALTTP as the Imprisoning War, and my argument stands that the evidence in TWW and FSA does not validate such a context that you assume. The war for the Sacred Realm has no bearing on this argument.


My argument is hardly that they exist for the sole purpose of connecting OoT to ALttP. My argument is that TWW and FSA can serve to set the circumstances for the thinning of Hylian blood and the return of Ganon after TWW, respectively. In the absence of any other context giving us the conditions necessary for ALttP to be met (a sages' seal, the diminishing of the Hylian race, a living Ganon who has been captured), I use TWW and FSA as the context for ALttP.

TP has a number of references to ALttP, but we must also consider that it draws heavily from the pre-OoT backstory shared with the backstory of ALttP and, as an "alternate history" of OoT, ALttP references should be expected, as OoT itself is an extension of ALttP's backstory.


I feel I should also state that OoT, if it is meant to tell the history of the IW, would qualify as a retcon of the original IW story. Thus, any facts from ALttP that contradict OoT would be assumed to either be changed or, in the presence of additional games (TWW specifically) that add to OoT's story and further games (FSA, specifically) that MAY be linked to these additions, hammered into the changed continuity. You can also argue that this happens on the other side of the timeline, of course.

Due to its popularity, we can presume that the spawning of multiple sequels is due to a commercial strategy that involves capitalizing off of this legacy. TWW itself was designed to be innovative, and so we can presume that TWW itself was not designed with the intent of altering OoT's intent (rather, that the story of the flooded world was put into a context that made the most sense to the player). Whether this is one of its effects is a matter of debate.

Edited by LionHarted, 02 May 2008 - 01:28 PM.


#89 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 02 May 2008 - 02:48 PM

The prolonged wars themselves, however, have already been referenced at least twice, in ALttP and OoT. TP simply ties them in to its direct plot in a more substantial way than before in the absence of the Imprisoning War story.


To be quite honest, we don't really know if the war ten years prior to OoT is actually meant to be the same war that the Dark Tribe were sealed in. We know that a war took place, but not what took place in it.

And even if the Dark Tribe's war is meant to be referenced in the IW story, it doesn't discount the argument that the IW could be a separate event in the Child Timeline.

My argument is hardly that they exist for the sole purpose of connecting OoT to ALttP. My argument is that TWW and FSA can serve to set the circumstances for the thinning of Hylian blood and the return of Ganon after TWW, respectively. In the absence of any other context giving us the conditions necessary for ALttP to be met (a sages' seal, the diminishing of the Hylian race, a living Ganon who has been captured), I use TWW and FSA as the context for ALttP.

TP has a number of references to ALttP, but we must also consider that it draws heavily from the pre-OoT backstory shared with the backstory of ALttP and, as an "alternate history" of OoT, ALttP references should be expected, as OoT itself is an extension of ALttP's backstory.


Relating to the "Parallel" topic, the events that take place do not define the progression from one event to the next. If we establish that OoT is the "before" state and ALTTP is the "after" state, this fact does not establish the progression between events or the progression of the conditions that you said must be satisfied (like the thinning of the Hylian blood, which can potentially take place through either interbreeding or magical decline). In which case, it is only by assuming the progression of events and conditions that you believe TWW and FSA best suit that progression. If we assume a different progression of events and conditions, it could just as easily be said that TP best suits that progression instead. The argument works both ways and it is only by assuming the progression that we can justify any direct relationship between OoT and ALTTP.

The lack of evidence that actually establishes cause and effect is the reason I disconnect OoT and ALTTP. I make the same argument for placing ALTTP in the Child Timeline and the Adult Timeline.

Edited by Raian, 02 May 2008 - 02:50 PM.


#90 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 02 May 2008 - 04:30 PM

To be quite honest, we don't really know if the war ten years prior to OoT is actually meant to be the same war that the Dark Tribe were sealed in.


We know that Hyrule has a "bloody history of greed and hatred," and you would be a darned fool not to make that correlation, considering the line serves no purpose in the game if not as a reference.

And even if the Dark Tribe's war is meant to be referenced in the IW story, it doesn't discount the argument that the IW could be a separate event in the Child Timeline.


The IW is OoT. That discounts the argument entirely.

Relating to the "Parallel" topic, the events that take place do not define the progression from one event to the next. If we establish that OoT is the "before" state and ALTTP is the "after" state, this fact does not establish the progression between events or the progression of the conditions that you said must be satisfied (like the thinning of the Hylian blood, which can potentially take place through either interbreeding or magical decline).


The IW is the "before" state and ALttP is the "after" state. OoT is the "IW." If OoT is not a satisfying "before" state, then there is more to the picture than OoT and ALttP.

It's called "retroactive continuity." I suggest you familiarize yourself with it, because the Zelda series is essentially a big mess of it.

In which case, it is only by assuming the progression of events and conditions that you believe TWW and FSA best suit that progression.


I don't have to assume.

We were told that OoT is the IW, and the IW is ALttP's prologue.

You, on the other hand, have to assume that OoT is NOT the IW.




Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name