110 replies to this topic

[NM87]

Would someone who doesn't care about the timeline have a discussion about how Oracles should retcon ALTTP>LA and put themselves in a position where they have to think about making references to LA in Oracles?

Exactly, the same could be said about their original intentions for OOT. Of course, that is Nintendo.

Capcom, could actually care about the timeline a little more, or at least the team that does the Zelda games.

[MikePetersSucks]

Capcom, could actually care about the timeline a little more, or at least the team that does the Zelda games.

Given the way they just throw shit together to make their games, I doubt it.

[Raien]

Capcom, could actually care about the timeline a little more, or at least the team that does the Zelda games.

Capcom have made four Zelda games; OoS, OoA, FS, TMC. All four games feature separate stories from the main timeline, and in the case of TMC, doesn't even properly connect to its' sequel.

[Vertiboy]

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.

[Raien]

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.

Bullshit.

To repeat a point I made before; the impression that developers do not care about the timeline has been stated by the developers to derive from the Miyamoto philosophy that all game stories must not be confusing, and thus all game stories have a closed beginning and ending. But as OoT and TWW have shown, the developers can develop the timeline quite considerably while following the Miyamoto philosophy. And the fact that they have done so shows that they do care about the timeline. And yet even in these instances, the timeline has only been developed according to traditional standards (i.e. a direct sequence of key events from one game to the next), not fan-made standards that heavily rely on the existence of visual iconography. Then again, Aonuma said in 2007 that Zelda games are developed with an original premise first before looking at the timeline, yet that clearly contradicts the development of TWW's story. Could this be evidence that *shock* the developers' approach to the storyline could change over the course of time?

In short, to assume a developer's stance towards the timeline is a crass generalisation, and to argue that it justifies retcons is an even more crass generalisation. Logic says that if someone doesn't care about something, they ignore it altogether. Yet that train of logic seems to have gone completely over your head. There is absolutely nothing conclusive about the developer stance towards the timeline that can be used to construct a timeline argument (except the Miyamoto philosophy, of course).

And the strange thing is that you already have a perfectly valid argument; Oracles' ending mirrors ALTTP's ending, but a boat is included. You don't need anything more than that to assert your beliefs (you certainly don't need to bullshit about developer intent). So I don't know why you still bother. If MPS can't accept it, then let him believe what he wants to.

Edited by Raian, 22 June 2008 - 05:56 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Bullshit.

To repeat a point I made before; the impression that developers do not care about the timeline has been stated by the developers to derive from the Miyamoto philosophy that all game stories must not be confusing, and thus all game stories have a closed beginning and ending. But as OoT and TWW have shown, the developers can develop the timeline quite considerably while following the Miyamoto philosophy. And the fact that they have done so shows that they do care about the timeline. And yet even in these instances, the timeline has only been developed according to traditional standards (i.e. a direct sequence of key events from one game to the next), not fan-made standards that heavily rely on the existence of visual iconography. Then again, Aonuma said in 2007 that Zelda games are developed with an original premise first before looking at the timeline, yet that clearly contradicts the development of TWW's story. Could this be evidence that *shock* the developers' approach to the storyline could change over the course of time?

In short, to assume a developer's stance towards the timeline is a crass generalisation, and to argue that it justifies retcons is an even more crass generalisation. Logic says that if someone doesn't care about something, they ignore it altogether. Yet that train of logic seems to have gone completely over your head. There is absolutely nothing conclusive about the developer stance towards the timeline that can be used to construct a timeline argument (except the Miyamoto philosophy, of course).

And the strange thing is that you already have a perfectly valid argument; Oracles' ending mirrors ALTTP's ending, but a boat is included. You don't need anything more than that to assert your beliefs (you certainly don't need to bullshit about developer intent). So I don't know why you still bother. If MPS can't accept it, then let him believe what he wants to.

I never said that the creators didn't care about the timeline at all. I just said that a games story or story arc between games were a higher priority than the overall timeline. I agree that early in TWW's development, it was probably decided that TWW would take place after OoT's adult ending. That is a simple story arc. Think about some of the damage that TWW caused to the timeline. Some people stopped believing that OoT was the Imprisoning War after this game. How can TWW be chronologically linked to any Zelda game made before it besides OoT? Think about all of the debates about whether or not Hyrule is unflooded or refounded after TWW. TWW comes after OoT's adult ending and before PH. Those the only thing regarding timeline placement that we know about the game. Beyond that, it's anybody's guess.

TWW was intended to be a sequel to OoT (a simple story arc), regardless of what damage ot the timeline it would cause or the debates it would spark. I am saying that the Oracles could be similar to TWW in that sense. The Oracles were possibly intended as prequel to LA (a simple story arc), regardless of what damage to the timeline it would cause or the debates it would spark.

Top that with the fact that Capcom uses simple information to connect their games to one another and to other Zelda games not made by Capcom, and we are back to where we started; many of the signs point towards a retcon.

[Raien]

Top that with the fact that Capcom uses simple information to connect their games to one another and to other Zelda games not made by Capcom, and we are back to where we started; many of the signs point towards a retcon.

The evidence in LA refers back to Link killing Ganon and subsequently leaving Hyrule. The events in ALTTP fit that back-story, and the events of Oracles fit that back-story; it could be either of those events. But the point that I'm trying to make here is that this doesn't justify sweeping statements about developer intentions. As has been shown, the developers' approach to the timeline is clearly inconsistent from one game to the next, with the Miyamoto philosophy being the only constant. Who can actually say what Capcom intended in 2001 based on what they did in 2005 (and that argument goes for me and MPS as well, considering we made such generalisations in earlier posts)?

You could be correct that the recreation of ALTTP's finale, plus the inclusion of the boat, indicates a retcon. But the oppositional argument says that numerous events in the Zelda chronology have been recreated without any impact upon the timeline, which is true, so what's there to say that Oracles did not also recreate events without impacting upon the timeline? That's all there is to it. There's nothing more to be said in this debate, as far as I am concerned.

Edited by Raian, 22 June 2008 - 08:55 PM.

[NM87]

@ Raian & MPS: Ok ok, Capcom doesn't care about the timeline either, jeez. The games they have made are easily fit into the timeline anyway.

[Vertiboy]

The evidence in LA refers back to Link killing Ganon and subsequently leaving Hyrule. The events in ALTTP fit that back-story, and the events of Oracles fit that back-story; it could be either of those events. But the point that I'm trying to make here is that this doesn't justify sweeping statements about developer intentions. As has been shown, the developers' approach to the timeline is clearly inconsistent from one game to the next, with the Miyamoto philosophy being the only constant. Who can actually say what Capcom intended in 2001 based on what they did in 2005 (and that argument goes for me and MPS as well, considering we made such generalisations in earlier posts)?

I don't see any inconsistent approach at all. A game and it's direct sequel always fit together fine, but when another game try to place itself chronologically to the first mentioned game, the connection isn't always as solid. Let me simplify that because I think it is a little confusing.

Game A = Original Game
Game B = Original Game's Sequel
Game C = Another Game, chronologically related to Original Game

Game A connects to Game B just fine. Game C comes before/after Game A in the timeline, but the connection makes some questions arise.

Some games can be, in different situations, an A and a C. Some Cs have a sequel, and they also have a game that is chronologically related to them.

Let me go through the list of games.

TAoL (B) made the connection to TLoZ (A) just fine.

While ALttP ( C ) clearly comes before TLoZ, Ganon's death at the end of ALttP makes questions arise of how he returns in TLoZ.

LA (B) made the connection to ALttP (A) just fine. (As I've said, I at least agree that when LA came out, it was ALttP's sequel.)

While OoT ( C ) clearly comes before ALttP, Ganon only obtaining the Triforce of Power makes questions arise of how the other Triforce came to be in the Dark World in ALttP.

MM (B) made the connection to OoT (A) just fine.

While TWW ( C ) clearly comes after OoT, the comment from Aonuma about OoT's adult ending caused confusion for years, and TWW makes the OoT -> ALttP connection more confusing.

PH (B) made the connection to TWW (A) just fine.

While TP ( C ) clearly comes after OoT, the relation of ALttP to OoT became even more confusing because it no longer fit in the child timeline as well as before. Also, some people still insist that there isn't a split timeline, even after TP made it painfully obvious.

FSA (B) made the connection to FS (A) just fine.

While TMC ( C ) clearly comes before FS, questions arise as to how Vaati is revived after TMC, and whether or not TMC is the first game chronologically or not.

The Oracles (B) made the connection to TLoZ or ALttP (A) just fine.


All I see is consistency.

It makes sense that if the Oracles was intended to be LA's prequel, Capcom would follow the formula that Nintendo followed, being the Game A, B, and C formula.

If Capcom intended for the Oracles to be Game A to LA's Game B, then the connections between the two games would be simple. That's exactly what I've been suggesting all along. Link killing Ganon and sailing away from Hyrule is a simple connection. Much like the simple connections between TLoZ -> TAoL, ALttP -> LA, and OoT -> MM (the 6 games made before the Oracles), the Oracles -> LA connection is simple. It simply references the prequel, then moves on to tell it's story.

You could be correct that the recreation of ALTTP's finale, plus the inclusion of the boat, indicates a retcon. But the oppositional argument says that numerous events in the Zelda chronology have been recreated without any impact upon the timeline, which is true, so what's there to say that Oracles did not also recreate events without impacting upon the timeline? That's all there is to it. There's nothing more to be said in this debate, as far as I am concerned.

How many times have games clearly tried to recreate events described in another game?

1. OoT was a retelling of the IW legend mentioned in ALttP.
2. ......
3. ......
4. ...*Cough*...

That's right. OoT was the only time. Now, games have attempted to chronologically come before others without neccesarily referencing the other game's backstory. When OoT was released, people started debating about how it relates to ALttP, why it differs from the IW legend, was the adult timeline erased after Link went back to his childhood, etc. OoT tried to recreate the events of the IW legend, and it seemed to have a large impact on the timeline, which just happens to be the exact opposite of what you have said.

Now then, read from the response above this one. Apparently a lot of games have made an impact upon the timeline. Every time a "Game C" is released, new questions arise. What I did not mention in the above response is that the Oracles could be "Game C"s in the sense that if they would screw up the ALttP -> LA relationship that was previously established.

I would think that there is a lot more to say in this debate, since I just proved the exact opposite of what you have said to be true.

Edited by Vertiboy, 23 June 2008 - 12:03 AM.

[SOAP]

I would just to add to Nintendo is known to make retcons without having to inform us when, where, what, how, or why. [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of times they don't even need a reason to retcon something. The Temple of Time's new location in TP is a perfect example of this. Did they need to place the ToT in such a drastic new location? Not really. But it worked better in the context of TP to have it in a remote and forgotten part of Hyrule. Did Nintendo need to sit us all down and spell out this retcon move in order for us fans to understand? No. Nintendo's not going to force-feed us every little detail about their intentions for the timeline. For some reason some people take that as Nintendo being completely apathetic about how their games connect. There's a big difference between allowing fans some wiggle room for their own interpretation and just not caring either way.

With all that in mind, I don't think if it's a stretch to say that Oracles could possibly be a retconned prequel to Oracles. It's could simply be a homage afterall though but so could TP's ending be a homage to ALttP. And yet how many people were quick to assume that TP was some sort of retcon prequel to ALttP based just on that alone? Not many people made a big fuss about it then and TP doesn't even match up with ALttP's beginning in anyway except for the Mastersword being a forest. At least Oracles can lead into LA seamlessly, probably even moreso than ALttP did, dare I say. The only assumption being made is that it's the creator's intent, which is a very common assumption on these boards and is sometimes necessary to even get anywhere in these debates.

Edited by SOAP, 23 June 2008 - 05:12 AM.

[Fyxe]

I would just to add to Nintendo is known to make retcons without having to inform us when, where, what, how, or why. [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of times they don't even need a reason to retcon something. The Temple of Time's new location in TP is a perfect example of this. Did they need to place the ToT in such a drastic new location? Not really. But it worked better in the context of TP to have it in a remote and forgotten part of Hyrule.

I think that's the difference between a retcon and a reimagining though, isn't it? I could list about a billion geographical differences between TP and OoT, the obvious ones that spring to mind is the Temple of Time's relocation, the fact that Zora's Domain is north of Hyrule Castle rather than east, the introduction of an entirely new wintery region, and Death Mountain's reimagining as a molten mountain range rather than a single volcano. That's not even considering the fact that there are whole new provinces that weren't even mentioned in OoT.

However, the fact that they redesigned Hyrule whilst sticking vaguely to OoT's old layout doesn't mean that if they went back and remade OoT, they'd mold it in TP's image, does it? The reason Nintendo 'retcons' geography is for the sake of gameplay. Nobody wants to explore the exact same Hyrule over and over again, so Hyrule is always arranged differently, but with familiar yet slightly different landmarks.

This is far closer to what is considered a reimagining than a retcon. Retcon is going back to an established storyline point and changing it for the sake of the overall continuity. I don't think there is any solid evidence for this occuring with the Oracle games, or needing to occur. It would just add to confusion more than anything.

Also, I'm getting fed up with this notion that the Oracle games somehow lead into LA better than ALttP. The next time Vertiboy or someone says this, I'd like to see the reasoning WHY. Something other than the ship. Something plot related, preferably.

Edited by Fyxe, 23 June 2008 - 06:28 AM.

[Raien]

It makes sense that if the Oracles was intended to be LA's prequel, Capcom would follow the formula that Nintendo followed, being the Game A, B, and C formula.

If Capcom intended for the Oracles to be Game A to LA's Game B, then the connections between the two games would be simple. That's exactly what I've been suggesting all along. Link killing Ganon and sailing away from Hyrule is a simple connection. Much like the simple connections between TLoZ -> TAoL, ALttP -> LA, and OoT -> MM (the 6 games made before the Oracles), the Oracles -> LA connection is simple. It simply references the prequel, then moves on to tell it's story.

So you've found a pattern, but you cannot possibly justify that this pattern was a deliberate result of Nintendo's approach to the timeline. What would be the point of restricting sequel developments and then following absurd patterns of A, B and C? Following the pattern would not be constructive to making necessary changes to the gameplay or thematics over time, and players certainly could not have foreseen that a multiplayer Zelda game irrelevant to the timeline would exist from the pattern alone (and I've just noticed you omitted FS from your pattern, which pretty much proves my point).

How many times have games clearly tried to recreate events described in another game?

1. OoT was a retelling of the IW legend mentioned in ALttP.
2. ......
3. ......
4. ...*Cough*...

You appear to have misunderstood my argument. Here are three examples of recreated events:

-Ganon receives a magical power and spreads evil to Hyrule (LoZ, ALTTP, OoT, FSA, TP).
-Link has to collect magical stones to get an evil-repelling sword (ALTTP, OoT, TWW, TMC, PH).
-Link defeats Ganon and restores peace to Hyrule (LoZ, ALTTP, OoT, Oracles, FSA, TP).

The third example, in particular, appears in six games including Oracles, so who's to say that TP did not retcon Oracles as LA's backstory? Because every recreation of events MUST affect older games in the timeline, right? And the Triforce is in Hyrule at TP's end, so there's more evidence of a retcon!!!![/sarcasm]

I would think that there is a lot more to say in this debate, since I just proved the exact opposite of what you have said to be true.

Don't assume you proved anything without allowing your argument to be contested. It makes you look like an ass.

Edited by Raian, 23 June 2008 - 01:57 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

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.)

I DID read what you wrote, and that's why I know it's irrelevant. Stop being an asshole, you're getting worse.

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.

No, it really, actually doesn't.

I would just to add to Nintendo is known to make retcons without having to inform us when, where, what, how, or why. [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of times they don't even need a reason to retcon something. The Temple of Time's new location in TP is a perfect example of this. Did they need to place the ToT in such a drastic new location? Not really. But it worked better in the context of TP to have it in a remote and forgotten part of Hyrule. Did Nintendo need to sit us all down and spell out this retcon move in order for us fans to understand? No. Nintendo's not going to force-feed us every little detail about their intentions for the timeline. For some reason some people take that as Nintendo being completely apathetic about how their games connect. There's a big difference between allowing fans some wiggle room for their own interpretation and just not caring either way.

That's not a retcon, sir.

[SOAP]

I would just to add to Nintendo is known to make retcons without having to inform us when, where, what, how, or why. [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of times they don't even need a reason to retcon something. The Temple of Time's new location in TP is a perfect example of this. Did they need to place the ToT in such a drastic new location? Not really. But it worked better in the context of TP to have it in a remote and forgotten part of Hyrule.

I think that's the difference between a retcon and a reimagining though, isn't it? I could list about a billion geographical differences between TP and OoT, the obvious ones that spring to mind is the Temple of Time's relocation, the fact that Zora's Domain is north of Hyrule Castle rather than east, the introduction of an entirely new wintery region, and Death Mountain's reimagining as a molten mountain range rather than a single volcano. That's not even considering the fact that there are whole new provinces that weren't even mentioned in OoT.

Fyxe, I could care less about geography. Personally I like how the geography is reimagined in each new game. The Temple of Time's new location could be considered a retcon because of it's storyline implications. Having the Temple of Time as dilapidated ruins in the middle of a forest bridges the gap between the Master sword resting inside a building at the end of OoT and resting in the middle of an enchanted forest in ALttP. For some this is enough to say TP is ALttP's retconned prequel, despite nearly everything else not matching up quite as much. For others it's just a very blatant homage nothing more. My issue is that people don't take as big an issue with TP being ALttP's prequel as you guys are doing with with Vertiboy believing Oracles is LA's prequel. Nothing is contradicted, within the games themselves, with making such a claim. Oracles ends pretty much the same way as ALttP (and yes with the added bonus of Link sailing away in the end in an identical boat). All that is contradicting is outdated popular beliefs. Before Oracles was even a thought of course it was ALttP's sequel. But nothing is solid when it comes to works of fiction. Just look at how many times the geography alone gets reimagined, just to throw you arguement back at you. If Nintendo decides to add extra chapters between ALttP and LA or replace ALttP entirely with another game, they could do that. If they decide to the same with OoT and MM they could do that too, though it have a harder time getting away with that and it would be harder to prove without an official statement from the creators.

[Raien]

It doesn't help that Vertiboy's argument changed from "I'm not trying to prove anything." to "I've proven that an Oracles retcon makes more sense than the original ALTTP>LA connection." If it wasn't for an increasing arrogance, I don't think this discussion would be continuing. I certainly have never tried to assert ALTTP>LA over an Oracles retcon in my recent posts; I think they deserve equal consideration.

Edited by Raian, 23 June 2008 - 04:01 PM.

[SOAP]

Verti is Verti. How he choses to present his argument is his prerogative. I'm with you though that both deserve equal consideration which is why I sided with Vertiboy in this debate, something I don't do very often. I just really hate how we get stuck in this whole mindset of how the timeline should be that when someone comes up with something different it gets dismissed off the bat. If the timeline is so cemented why bother having this forum at all?

[Vertiboy]

Everyone has made some notable points, some good and some bad, throughout the entire discussion. As much as I've liked discussing my timeline with all of you, I no longer have the time to debate that I used to have, since my newly established family needs me more and more each day. Until I have more free time, I cannot really spend as much time discussing Zelda or doing much else online.

Let me just say this. Most of you take the timeline too seriously. If you get so frustrated during a debate that you feel the need to cuss at someone (for disagreeing with you or for not playing a game) or if you compare a Zelda timeline debate to a debate of actual importance (see sig), then you take the timeline too seriously. Do you have any idea how sad it is that I have to sit here and translate my simple arguement, "It's just a game. The developers don't take the timeline that seriously," into the complex timeline theorists' "advanced" language? Most people casually playing the Oracles who have played Link's Awakening would notice the similarities, assume the connection, then move on with their lives instead of searching for 10 year old websites or tiny references to A Link to the Past in order attempt to disprove the connection. When discussing my ideas with you, I shouldn't have to bring up the fact that Capcom has consistently made the connections between their games simple or that the creators favor individual story/story arcs over the overall timeline. The discussions shouldn't be that in-depth. In order for people such as yourselves, who take the timeline so seriously, to understand my arguement, I have to complicate it.

As we all know, Aonuma has said that when making a Zelda game, the team writes a game's story first, then places the game in the overall timeline second. Capcom has consistently kept the timeline connections of all their games simple. I take these two ideas and try to think of the timeline from their simple point of view. I can see Aonuma deciding to write stories of his own, building off Ocarina of Time, and essentially ignoring the first few games in "his" timeline. I can see Capcom assuming that the two connections to Link's Awakening in the Oracles would be enough evidence to indicate that the later is the former's prequel. I can see Capcom assuming that the reference to Link's first adventure and the first time Link has worn a green hat would be enough evidence to indicate that it is the first chronological game. Given what we know about Individual Stories > Overall Timeline and Capcom Games = Simple Connections, these ideas are not far from believable. These are very simple ideas that people who see the timeline as this complex puzzle where every single detail counts could not even begin to comprehend, not because they are too stupid, but because they overcomplicate things.

I've said that I can't prove to you 100% that the Oracles are the prequel of Link's Awakening, and I cannot by your complicated standards. By the simple standards that the timeline was concieved under in the first place, however, I have proved it. In the simple standards, you don't need a statement from a creator that says, "We intended for the Oracles to take place before Link's Awakening, ousting A Link to the Past from that spot," in order to prove it. Common sense does that for people like myself, and from what we know about the priority of the timeline to the creators, I think that they assumed common sense would be enough, too.

With that, I would be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy discussing Zelda with you all, even if I got frustrated when people didn't listen to what I said or clearly ignored it because they knew there was nothing they could say in response to disprove it. Sorry for any aggression that I have shown, sorry that you can't take a simpler approach to the timeline, and sorry that I cannot discuss this with you any longer. Here's hoping that by the time the next Zelda game is released, I am not so busy that I cannot drop by and discuss it with you all. Goodbye for now.

P.S.: Take a look at this:

http://www.encyclope...atica.com/Zelda (Warning: If you can't stand the sight of poorly drawn Zelda porn, don't click on the link. It isn't the main focus of the article, but 2-3 pictures of it show up on the page.)

Some of you may even be lucky enough to have been mentioned and quoted in this article...

Edited by Vertiboy, 24 June 2008 - 02:24 AM.

[Raien]

Do you have any idea how sad it is that I have to sit here and translate my simple arguement, "It's just a game. The developers don't take the timeline that seriously," into the complex timeline theorists' "advanced" language?

Do you have any idea how annoying it is that I have to repeatedly point out that "The developers don't take the timeline seriously." is justification for ignoring timeline connections as much as it is for retconning them? Throughout this debate, I can't actually remember a time you directly responded to this point.

No one has said that Oracles cannot be LA's back story, but that the evidence you use to support it is either:
a) crass generalising of developer intentions (TWW was clearly not developed with the timeline as a secondary consideration and TP was originally going to connect OoT to TWW, according to Aonuma. Clearly what Aonuma said about timeline development in 2007 has been mistranslated, misinterpreted or is flat-out false).
b) reoccuring plot points that have been used before and after both ALTTP and Oracles. As far as I am aware, Link saving Hyrule from Ganon is the only requirement to be LA's back story, and with six games establishing Ganon's death in Hyrule, it cannot possibly make more sense for Oracles to be the only possible placement.

And btw, nice bit of hypocrisy with that encyclopedia dramatica edit there. You complain that theorists here cuss, yet you don't seem to mind calling us faggots, do you?

Edited by Raian, 24 June 2008 - 01:27 PM.

[Fyxe]

Some of you may even be lucky enough to have been mentioned and quoted in this article...

Oh gee, an' quoted by whom, I wonder? XP

(cur) (last) 07:28, 24 June 2008 Vertiboy (Talk | Contribs) (14,279 bytes) (→How to troll Zelda timeline theorist/fanboys)
(cur) (last) 00:22, 23 June 2008 Vertiboy (Talk | Contribs) (13,963 bytes) (→The Zelda Timeline is Serious Business)

http://www.encyclope...ldid=1997600621

What a petty, petty man you are~

Honestly, you seriously think anyone reading this forum will think you're any less of a nerd than the rest of us? You think any of your quotes wouldn't go amiss alongside those? Lawdy~

I laughed so hard! Editing ED yourself to make yourself feel better about being sworn at, then linking to your own writing to make yourself look like you're all 'above this' Serious Business? I couldn't make it up myself! Hehehe, seriousleh. Boys. XP

[MikePetersSucks]

So now Vertiboy has degenerated into the epitome of immaturity. And you're supposed to be a father, sir? Poor children.

Grow the hell up, you big baby.

[Showsni]

Well, Vertiboy says he has no more time to debate, and everyone else is going off topic, so I'm locking this before it degenerates any further.