Before I begin, let me note that Capcom has a history of makng the connections between their games and their timeline placement simple.
The Oracles, for example, take place after Ganon has been killed and the Triforce is in Hyrule. It doesn't try to make it's ties to TLoZ or ALttP specific, but it makes simple references that let us know that it takes place after at least one of those two games.
FSA references FS's plot before the game begins. That's a simple connection.
TMC is obviously the origin of Vaati and the Four Sword, placing it before FS. Simple connection.
Knowing that Capcom likes to keep it's connections simple, why wouldn't Capcom having Link kill Ganon and sail away from Hyrule be enough to indicate a retcon of the Oracles to be LA's prequel?
No, it hasn't. You just say it did.
I'm not the only person to think that LA's placement has been retconned. I may not be the one to say that it has challenged ALttP as LA's prequel, but you, nor anyone else on the other side othe debate, are also not the ones to say that it hasn't. The only difference is that
mytheory is consistent with what we know about the creators' low standards and priority for the timeline, and
yours is not.
I ignore them because they're irrelevant.
You must have also ignored my explaination on how they are relevant, too. Who will care what you have to say in a debate if you ignore points that other people make. If you feel as if the connections I made between IW/OoT and LA's backstory/the Oracles are irrelevant,
explain why. I mean, if you'd rather, I can disagree without giving you reasons and try to sound like an Internet tough guy, too.
LA has been retconned to the Oracles, idiot. Are your parents brother and sister? Everything you have said means nothing because I've been ignoring it on purpose. Everytime I read what you type I just go, "LALALALALALA" and it all goes away. I see a post by you, and I say, "tl;dr" because it doesn't even matter. I just don't even bother listening to your crappy defense for your crappy theory anymore. Crappy. Instead of having an open mind and listening to you, I will automatically write off everything you say because I just
know I'm right, even though I can't prove it.
(Just so you know, I didn't mean anything I just said above. I was just showing you that I can be as ignorant as you can.)
The reason we don't accept the retcon is because nothing supports it. It doesn't contribute anything, doesn't resolve anything, and it's existence is strenuous and shaky at best.
You're right. Nothing supports it. Except for the big fact that Capcom and other Zelda game creators have low standards for timeline information and the overall timeline as a low priority. No, nothing except that
huge, undeniable fact supports the theory that the two similarities to LA's backstory are enough to suggest a retcon.
Me, for one. And the fact that the creators don't take the timeline too seriously is precisely why I object the retcon idea. They have absolutely no reason to do it, especially if they don't care about timeline.
Honestly, I shouldn't even explain this
again, since I just went through this with Fyxe a few days ago, but since I guess you seem to be stuck in tl;dr mode, I guess I'll explain it again.
Let's say that someone who cares about the timeline more than the creators get a job with Nintendo, more specifically the Zelda team, to work on the next Zelda game. The Zelda timeline is relatively important to them. No, it's nowhere near being the most important thing in their life, but they still care about it. Aonuma turns to them to write the story and script for the next Zelda game. Since this person cares about keeping the timeline straight, he/she tries to avoid continuity errors, plot holes, etc.
This person cares so much about continuity that he/she will retcon as little as possible.Let's say that someone who does not care about the timeline quite as much gets the same job. Aonuma ask them to write the story and script. This person works on the game in a similar fashion that Aonuma has described before; he/she will focus on the game's individual story, then figure out where the story takes place in the timeline after that. In order for him/her to tell the story, some canon facts established in another game or two need to be retconned.
Since this person is more concerned about writing an individual story than the overall timeline, this person will retcon in order to write the new story. If neccesary, this person will retcon as much as he/she needs to in order to tell the new story because overall timeline continuity isn't that important to them.The
less a particular game's Zelda crew cares about the overall timeline, the
more they will retcon. If they don't care about the timeline, then they will have
no problem at all retconning a canon fact here or there in order to tell their story.
Why do you think that so many shows on TV have small to large continuity errors, creating a loose continuity? Do you think that it is because they care about preserving perfect continuity? No, it is because the writers change certain established details in order to tell an individual episode's story and/or because they could care less about remembering every little detail that they've written into the show in the past. Some shows, however, like
Lost or
24 have a better continuity because that is what is important to those shows. Keeping their timeline straight and continuity errors to a minimum is very important to the writer of those shows. The same applies to novels, movies, comic books, other video games, etc.
All forms of media tend to follow this trend.
The less that writers care about overall continuity, and the more that they care about an individual story, the more retcons, intentional and unintentional, will be made.The same applies to Zelda. We know that overall continuity isn't the most important aspect to the different Zelda crews during the history of the series. Why would we assume that the writers would retcon less if they don't care about the timeline?
I am suggesting that Capcom wanted to tell the story of LA's prequel, but in order to do so, they had to retcon LA's placement. Since an individual story or story arc is more important than overall continuity, they went through with the retcon.
I know, I know. "Nothing at all suggest that a retcon took place." Don't say that. Seriously, I get it. You like to ignore me and things that the creators have said. I know.
Let's say that we lived in an alternate reality where overall timeline continuity of Zelda was the top priority of every Zelda crew since the very first game. It's 2001, and the Oracles are released, unchanged from how they are in this reality. I, nor would many others, assume that a retcon has taken place simply because of the two main similarities between LA's backstory and the Oracles. We would all want more connections than those two similarities in order to prove an Oracles/LA connection. The sad thing is that most of the people on this forum seem to be living in that reality. While they
claim to believe that the writers don't put too much thought into the timeline, they contradict it by overanalyzing every detail. We live in a reality where it is
possible (notice I didn't say
factual) that Capcom would assume the simple similarities between the Oracles and LA would be enough to indicate a retcon of LA's timeline placement.
You may not think that the connections are strong enough, but that is not what matters. If
Capcom thought that the connections were strong enough, then they are. We don't know for sure what they thought. I've never actually claimed to know what they were thinking (but you wouldn't know because you obviously don't pay attention very well). I've only said that the idea that the two connections imply a retcon is
supported by all the Zelda crews' low priority and standard of overall timeline information in games. I never actually say that it
proves it. If that is what you want, for me to
prove that a retcon has taken place, then no I can't. You win. A connection between ALttP and LA can be proven, but a retcon of that original connection can only be suggested. If
that is what you have wanted me to say all along, then I said it, and I mean it.
I can only support my theory with the lack of timeline enthusiasm on all the Zelda crews' part, the crews' favoring of an individual story over the overall timeline, the similarities between LA's backstory and the Oracles, and the fact that the connections between Capcom's Zelda games have always been very simple. I cannot prove my theory that way. Just because a theory cannot be proven, that doesn't mean it isn't true. If people would stop rejecting theories with a lot of support that can't neccesarily be proven, then the overall timeline wouldn't seem so jumbled.