78 replies to this topic

[Impossible]

Quote

Just to let you know, that these small details do not prove beyond a doubt that FSA is ALTTP's prequel. After you understand that we can get onto the bigger points.

And I never claimed that they did! Me saying that I was going to prove that placement beyond a doubt encompassed that entire discussion. Not just the small points.

And really, claiming that the Lost Woods in FSA and ALttP are different is ridiculous. Clearly, almost every place that matches ALttP is supposed to be the same.

Quote

They still exist.

So what? Now you're just responding for the sake of responding. Their presence in Hyrule is the only thing that's relevant here.

Quote

Communications theory says that when you emphasise one meaning and ignore others, the emphasised meaning is the intended meaning.

...Logic? In a timeline debate? Nah. Next you'll be asking for people to consider the emphasised meaning in TWW, instead of the ones that are ignored or not implied.

[Impossible]

What I really need at the moment is as much feedback as possible, on the sections that can be improved or added to. I'm always working on the next version, and I've made a few improvements, but I intend to use everything that comes out of this topic to make 1.1 better. I only had one person to get feedback from before posting this, so there should be a lot more that other people can add. Anything I've missed, or anything that isn't clearly explained, would help. I guess people are unintentionally helping me with the latter problem, because there are a few issues people keep posting about where I evidently haven't made all my points clear enough. But more evidence would be good, too, because my intent was to include basically all of it. If you have an argument or theory to add that I haven't talked about, I'd be happy to do that. I'm just trying to make it better, so any kind of response or criticism will work.

Edited by Impossible, 26 April 2008 - 03:06 AM.

[NM87]

Quote

And I never claimed that they did! Me saying that I was going to prove that placement beyond a doubt encompassed that entire discussion. Not just the small points.

Good, now you can give me your explanation/thoughts about placing FSA before ALTTP with this piece of knowledge.

My objection to placing FSA before ALTTP lies with Ganon. The Trident inscription in FSA states that something is being resurrected. If you place FSA before ALTTP you are saying that FSA Ganondorf became the Demon King of Darkness by touching the Trident which transformed him into Ganon. In ALTTP we learn that when ALTTP Ganondorf touched the Triforce, the same thing happened, although ALTTP clearly states that Ganon was born at that time. FSA implies more of a resurrection of the Demon King of Darkness while ALTTP implies his birth. Jhurvid had told me its more about the meaning the developers intended with each game rather than what is stated. According to that, FSA should go after ALTTP because FSA is about resurrection while ALTTP is about the begining of the "Great Cataclysm".

In addition, placing FSA before ALTTP means placing the resurrection of the Demon King of Darkness before his birth. Placing ALTTP before FSA also creates the problem of explaining where the Trident came from and who used it previously because it obviously states it was used before.

ALTTP-LOZ-OOX-FSA explains this better because FSA is resurrecting the Ganon from the previous games. Interestingly enough, Ganon is supposedly revived WITH the Trident in OOX, even though the ritual was only for Ganon himself. If that doesn't imply Ganon's relation to the Trident then lol

[Jumbie]

NM87, on Apr 28 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

Interestingly enough, Ganon is supposedly revived WITH the Trident in OOX, even though the ritual was only for Ganon himself. If that doesn't imply Ganon's relation to the Trident then lol

That's an interesting point, somehow...

[Raien]

Did the Trident really have importance in the timeline when OoX was released? Do we have to give it importance in OoX because FSA does?

The Trident was just an accessory to Ganon in ALTTP and OoX, like his skull necklace. The fact that he possessed it after death doesn't necessarily give it ultimate timeline importance in those games.

[LionHarted]

Raian, on Apr 29 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

Did the Trident really have importance in the timeline when OoX was released? Do we have to give it importance in OoX because FSA does?

The Trident was just an accessory to Ganon in ALTTP and OoX, like his skull necklace. The fact that he possessed it after death doesn't necessarily give it ultimate timeline importance in those games.

Well, OoX and FSA are the only two games in which he takes the demon form without the Triforce, and in both of those he has the Trident...

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 29 2008, 11:43 PM, said:

Well, OoX and FSA are the only two games in which he takes the demon form without the Triforce, and in both of those he has the Trident...

Which completely ignores my point, which is that since the importance of the Trident was not established in OoX, we don't know whether FSA gives it importance. It's a speculatory affair.

[NM87]

Should we really base the meaning of events/locales/items in Zelda games and their relation to the timeline depending on thier release date? So ten years from now the Skull Necklace is featured in "Four Swords Quest" as an artifact resurrected from ancient times? Would it change the importance of the Skull Necklace in ALTTP? Isn't that what new games do, shed light on previous riddles?

[Sparx401]

The new game would have to wrap "backwards" to match up consistently and coherently with the older game it's taking from (which is what a lot of Zelda games fail at--particularly OoT and FSA). The release dates are important because in LttP, there is no importance placed on the trident so if the developers created an "origins story" to it, then it has to match up to the previous game, at least to a certain agreeable extent.

The whole, "Back then it wasn't important, but now it is!" applies only to the actual "evolution" of Zelda as gaming series that is continually expanding it's own little universe. The "back then" part is "stuck" like that--the lack of importance is still in that game per se (unless there was a remake that retcons it) but was revitalized, renewed, or redone in a later installment. Keep in mind that the developers don't hold the timeline very high on their priority list, so their creative licensing may very well buttress against our analytical and pragmatic approaches.

I'm also a bit iffy on the how newer games shed light on previous "riddles". I do agree with that statement in general, but the trident itself wasn't really a riddle, and neither is/was the skull necklace (of course, we could just chalk THAT up to the moblins in WW wearing skull necklaces all the time?) In any case, newer Zelda games should help fill in the gaps and make smoother ties rather than fraying ends; if that means resolving some "riddles", then yes by all means! At the same time, however, we have to distinguish between the periods of intent and whether or not the developers still have that intent and if they meant it to be just for that particular Zelda game or if it was meant to be an overarching timeline thing. The latter case becomes easier to perceive (that is, the overarching timeline thing) if the intent was progressing from an older game to a newer one (like the Master Sword), but "backwards wrapping" intent like the trident (FSA to[?] LttP) makes it all the more hard.

The thing is, we have to remember not to overstep the limits of the evidence. Based on what we have now, it isn't sufficient enough to say whether or not the trident has overarching intent or just the small-scale intent for FSA. We need better linkage to the past (dang pun) 2-D games if we are to gain higher ground. I believe that some of us, perhaps at one time or another, have carried some "baggage" and overstepped the boundaries of what we have and "eaten more than what's on our plate". We may have spread the evidence over to places and contexts that weren't meant to be, and I believe it is that mass spreading that's creating a lot of conflict.

I wonder if I made myself clear...

[Raien]

My point is that what we know from FSA is the Trident contained the power of Darkness, and that the thief Ganondorf took it to become the King of Darkness. Any further connections to Ganon in ALTTP and OoX remain speculative, despite what little we know in FSA. In fact, to assume a specific connection between the games, we must already assume a timeline placement/theory.

I addressed this general subject in another topic "The Parallel in Timeline Theorising".

Edited by Raian, 02 May 2008 - 02:58 PM.

[NM87]

Sparx-

Howdy! Yes, you have made yourself perfectly clear in a superb explanation of canon (carbon) dating. Although, according to the theory that the forum goes by, the model in which we analyze the games is flawed. FSA is the first game to place importance on the Trident, which means that only FSA and the games thereafter where the Trident appears is it important, while previous games where the Trident is found become ignored. The simple truth is that the Trident is evident in those games and deserves just as much attention. We do not know if the developers created FSA with previous Trident appearences in mind, but the message sent by FSA is that it is important. We should take this into consideration.

Raian, on May 2 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

My point is that what we know from FSA is the Trident contained the power of Darkness, and that the thief Ganondorf took it to become the King of Darkness. Any further connections to Ganon in ALTTP and OoX remain speculative, despite what little we know in FSA. In fact, to assume a specific connection between the games, we must already assume a timeline placement/theory.

I addressed this general subject in another topic "The Parallel in Timeline Theorising".

ALTTP Ganondorf was already skilled in the dark arts, which would account for the power of Darkness residing in the Trident. Not that Ganon in ALTTP gets his dark powers from the Triforce, he had dark powers which were amplified.

FSA Ganonsorf was a Gerudo King/Guardian, not a thief. He was a thief for taking the Trident but not one in general. You aren't wrong for saying connections to ALTTP Ganon & OOX Ganon remain speculative, but the evidence is becoming quite strong. A theory I developed quickly without heavy thought is growing into something more real than I had imagined. I'll take a look at the topic.

[LionHarted]

NM87, on May 5 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

FSA Ganondorf was a Gerudo King/Guardian, not a thief. He was a thief for taking the Trident but not one in general.

He stole the Trident AND the Dark Mirror. I think that qualifies him as a thief.

[NM87]

LionHarted, on May 5 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

NM87, on May 5 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

FSA Ganondorf was a Gerudo King/Guardian, not a thief. He was a thief for taking the Trident but not one in general.

He stole the Trident AND the Dark Mirror. I think that qualifies him as a thief.

Not a human thief. As I have stated at least ten times before, you can't explain Ganondorf not being referred to as Gerudo Guardian or the King of Darkness in the IW, which he supposedly became in FSA if FSA had taken place before ALTTP. ALTTP clearly makes the distinction that this is when Ganon was born.

[LionHarted]

NM87, on May 6 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

Not a human thief. As I have stated at least ten times before, you can't explain Ganondorf not being referred to as Gerudo Guardian or the King of Darkness in the IW

Quite so. Hence the IW being OoT, and not anytime around FSA.

Quote

ALTTP clearly makes the distinction that this is when Ganon was born.

Yes. And "Ganon," the demon who always comes back, is born in OoT.

[NM87]

Quote

Quite so. Hence the IW being OoT, and not anytime around FSA.

Have you been paying attention? I don't follow FSA-ALTTP. My IW happens at a prime time.

MM-TP-IW-ALTTP/LA-LOZ/AOL-OOX-FS/FSA

Quote

Yes. And "Ganon," the demon who always comes back, is born in OoT.

Well, we have different interpretations of Ganon. OOT/TP Ganon is just a beast Ganondorf can transform into when angry or whatever, but 2D Ganon is Trident/Triforce Ganondorf after touching the Triforce. Whether or not the Ganondorf from the IW is OOT/TP Ganondorf who has retruned from the World of Spirits, or is a totally new Ganondorf, does not matter in my theory.

[joebear95]

umm sorry... but Impossible, did we move off the gamefaqs board?? I can't find the timeline topic there.

[Impossible]

I'm going to be updating this soon-ish, so don't forget about it. >_> I actually came across a REALLY old version of this document, from back when I first started it, which turned out to be in August 2005. It's amazing to see how much things have changed since then, both in the landscape of the timeline debate and in my own opinions. A few of my placements have changed, and the reasoning behind many of my placements has also changed significantly. I was far from sure about many things, and still wanted to keep OoT as the IW (on a third timeline or something), despite also believing it was impossible for this to happen in light of TWW. I think things have become clearer since then, at least...

[Crimson Lego]

LionHarted, on May 5 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

NM87, on May 5 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

FSA Ganondorf was a Gerudo King/Guardian, not a thief. He was a thief for taking the Trident but not one in general.

He stole the Trident AND the Dark Mirror. I think that qualifies him as a thief.

I'm pretty sure the Gerudo were called Gerudo Thieves; he's a thief.

[FDL]

Not in FSA they weren't, AFAIK.