110 replies to this topic

[CID Farwin]

The crest can glow without another Triforce to resonate with.

In TP it glows when Link returns from the Forest temple. It wasn't being used or resonating with another piece. Its perfectly fine for a piece to just glow.

So the Triforce is in TP, then? or is this whole post just snobbery? Either way, it is perfectly fine for a piece to just glow...in TP.

[trolling donkey-like snobbery]

hahaha your wit is so good I can hardly stand it any more please stop it you're killing me oh you're too funny

Not that I think LA follows Oracles but how are the masts different? One has the the sails folded up and the other doesn't. I mean would you have your sails open during a storm? No you wouldn't. You fail.

The biggest nitpick I've seen is that the furled up sails from LA's Intro looks like one square sail (like on a viking ship) whereas the sails in the Oracles' ending are three triangular sails (like most sailboats.) Not too bad of a nitpick considering some other theories, but meh; People will be morally opposed to anything that contradicts their idea of a timeline even a little bit.

I've said this before, but it's not like the Oracles ever reuses graphics from LA at all. Like, ever. The ship looking similar is like, totally the only thing in the whole game. Everything else is new. Thus it must be purposeful, and not just them simply reusing graphics, because if they were reusing graphics, surely they'd do it at other moments, right?

...OH WAIT.

...except it's not just the fact that the boats look similar, it's the fact that Link leaves for Hyrule by boat after a journey, which seems to match up with the LA manual, and doesn't happen in any other game, and for some people is sufficient evidence. (and some people would see the reused graphics as further proof.)


Oh, and I don't place LA after the Oracles, I just won't stand for ridicule of a theory that's more sound than you people seem to think.

Edited by CID Farwin, 13 June 2008 - 12:39 PM.

[Fyxe]

...except it's not just the fact that the boats look similar, it's the fact that Link leaves for Hyrule by boat after a journey, which seems to match up with the LA manual, and doesn't happen in any other game, and for some people is sufficient evidence. (and some people would see the reused graphics as further proof.)

Ya ya, that's all well and good, but it's remarkable that it somehow trumps the fact that Nintendo's Japanese LA website STILL states that the game is a direct sequel to ALttP. Couple that with the Satallaview sequel to ALttP where Link is absent from Hyrule, and the fact that both Agahnim and Ganon appear as Nightmares during the final battle. Just because ALttP doesn't end with link sailing away (because Nintendo can't predict the future, y'know) doesn't mean LA is less likely to follow it.

It should also be noted that Link starts the Oracle games riding in on Epona, and he ended MM by riding Epona. Does this mean that the Oracle games follow Majora's Mask? No. But that's the same logic.

[Raien]

It should also be noted that Link starts the Oracle games riding in on Epona, and he ended MM by riding Epona. Does this mean that the Oracle games follow Majora's Mask? No. But that's the same logic.

Fyxe wins.

[Fyxe]

Fyxe wins.

Ahh, reminded of the good ol' days... XP

[Vertiboy]

Okay, the ships look similar except for the fact that the sails are down. After all, I never actually said that the ships look the same, just similar. Now that the "sticklery" is out of the way, let's move on.

I totally agree that in-game sprites used in LA were reused in the Oracles. No debate there.

We are, however, discussing sprites and art used in FMVs from both games. Just take a look at the intro/ending of LA DX and the intro/ending of the Oracle games.

LA DX intro:



LA DX ending (plus a little bit of the final battle):

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Oracles intro:



Oracle of Ages ending (some FMV is peppered throughout it):



Oracle of Seasons ending (same as above regarding FMV):



Linked Oracles game ending (including a little bit of the final battle with Ganon):

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

The videos from these games are based on the official art of these games. The only comparable art in these three games (besides the boat in question) is the appearance of Link. Did Capcom simply reuse Link's appearance from LA in the Oracles? Well, that depends on what you are talking about. Yes, Capcom reused the green tunic with brown undershirt, green hat, and brown boots. That is a part of Link's appearance. That aspect of Link was reused in the Oracles.

As far as the actual looks go, it seems to me as if Capcom redrew Link in their own art style. Yes, all three games portray Link with a semi-cartoony look. Pretty much every Zelda game but OoT, MM, and TP has done this, though, so it wouldn't be fair to say that Capcom "stole" that style from LA. Link looks different enough in the Oracles' art than he does in LA's art.

Capcom may have copied sprites from LA when making the Oracles, but as far as the official art and FMVs go, it seems as if they used their own art. Which leads us to the boat. Why, if new art was used for the official art and FMVs, would Capcom choose to portray Link's boat in a similar (not exactly the same) fashion as LA did?

My answer is that the Oracles were intended to take place before LA, but of course, I know that many of you have different answers.

Ya ya, that's all well and good, but it's remarkable that it somehow trumps the fact that Nintendo's Japanese LA website STILL states that the game is a direct sequel to ALttP. Couple that with the Satallaview sequel to ALttP where Link is absent from Hyrule, and the fact that both Agahnim and Ganon appear as Nightmares during the final battle. Just because ALttP doesn't end with link sailing away (because Nintendo can't predict the future, y'know) doesn't mean LA is less likely to follow it.

What I don't understand is why people keep using the Japanese LA DX site as evidence. The Oracles were released after LA DX. Does anyone know when that site was updated last? Was it after the Oracles came out? I am not being sarcastic. I am actually curious.

Plus, what I don't understand is why a Japanese website can be used as proof but the American website (Zelda Universe) cannot (depending on the information given). I understand that the Japanese games trumph the American translations as far as canon goes, but is it really the same with websites. The American who posted inaccurate information on the American site just made some mistakes because he is human. Aren't Japanese people human as well? Aren't the Japanese just as capable of making mistakes when writing for a Zelda site as Americans are?

That isn't to say that I think that the Japanese LA site was wrong back when LA DX came out. I just have my doubts that the Japanese LA site has been updated since the Oracles have been released, making its claim that LA takes place after ALttP debatable.

I don't understand what Ancient Stone Tablets has to do with anything. It would take place between the Oracles and LA, making it possible for Ganon to appear in both the Oracles and AST.

EDIT: Actually, I think that I see what you mean. AST shows that Link left Hyrule after ALttP, leading into LA. I know this. AST also came out before the Oracles. With the Oracles, I believe that the original intent has been retconned. Of course LA followed ALttP when AST came out, so of course that is what that story will state. Then the Oracles were released...

Just because Link fights Agahnim's Shadow in LA he automatically has to be ALttP Link? Why? Are you suggesting that Link has to have fought Agahnim in order to fight Agahnim's Shadow? Where did you get that from? Is it stated or implied in the games?

It should also be noted that Link starts the Oracle games riding in on Epona, and he ended MM by riding Epona. Does this mean that the Oracle games follow Majora's Mask? No. But that's the same logic.

There is a difference between that logic and the logic that Oracles Link is the same as LA Link. The backstory of LA actually fits the story of Oracles. Link kills Ganon. Link sails away from Hyrule. These events apply to both Links. Boat or not, the order of Oracles -> LA could work.

Saying that the Oracles take place after MM is a gross underestimation of the logic above. The horses may be a similarity, but the facts don't support it. In the Oracles, Link has never met Zelda (which some would try to argue, but not me). In MM, Link knows Zelda. In the Oracles, the Triforce is in Hyrule Castle. In MM, we can only speculate where the Triforce is (Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf may have a crest, or it may still be in the Sacred Realm for the time being), but it sure isn't in Hyrule Castle. Epona or not, the order of MM -> Oracles could not work.

There is the difference.

Edited by Vertiboy, 13 June 2008 - 04:22 PM.

[Arturo]

oh my goodness the door of tyme!! its open

Because, obviously the reaction of a Princess is much more important than a huge door of rock which is said textually to be open.

[Fyxe]

This'll probably be my last post on this for awhile, but since I've got nothin' better t'do an' I can spot some points that need to be made, here goes.. @.@

We are, however, discussing sprites and art used in FMVs from both games.

FMVs? I hope that's a knowing mistake, because they're not FMVs. At all. @.@ They're a combination of animated art and sprites. The ship was a piece of art reused and modified, much like how Zelda's sprite is Marin's sprite, but reused and modified, along with a whole shedload of similar things.

The videos from these games are based on the official art of these games. The only comparable art in these three games (besides the boat in question) is the appearance of Link. Did Capcom simply reuse Link's appearance from LA in the Oracles? Well, that depends on what you are talking about. Yes, Capcom reused the green tunic with brown undershirt, green hat, and brown boots. That is a part of Link's appearance. That aspect of Link was reused in the Oracles.

Well, the fact that Link looks like Link in various Zelda games doesn't say much. Actually, one aspect that is distinctly different is that, aside from looking somewhat younger, the Link in the Oracle games is blonder and has white tights, compared to his ALttP/LA counterpart. This is obviously because Capcom's Link is pretty much a combination of the old ALttP Link with the new OoT/MM Link, mixed together to create a fairly generic 'Link'. I would argue this is because the Link in the Oracles is not meant to be related to any other Link. However, the Link in LA was clearly meant to be related to another Link, that of the previous game. I think this is the fundamental difference here.

Capcom may have copied sprites from LA when making the Oracles, but as far as the official art and FMVs go, it seems as if they used their own art. Which leads us to the boat. Why, if new art was used for the official art and FMVs, would Capcom choose to portray Link's boat in a similar (not exactly the same) fashion as LA did?

Obviously the ending scene is a homage to the whole Link sailing away on a new quest thing. Now, forgive me, but is it not the case that this sailing motif for Link is a pretty common theme in the series these days? The thing is, just because it's a homage doesn't mean it's a direct connection. If they had wanted to retcon the entire series, they could have done. Frankly though, there's absolutely NO REASON to retcon LA's placement. None whatsoever. Anyway, as for the art, but isn't the ending sequence a mix of art and sprites, sprites of which many were reused or modified from LA? Heck, I think some background art was reused in the Oracles as well, but I might be wrong. The fact that they reuse the ship's basic shape is not a surprise, because the ship is just another sprite.

What I don't understand is why people keep using the Japanese LA DX site as evidence. The Oracles were released after LA DX. Does anyone know when that site was updated last? Was it after the Oracles came out? I am not being sarcastic. I am actually curious.

Fair question, I don't know. I don't even know if the Oracles have a page on the Japanese Nintendo website. Should really check. But why should it be updated? Why should anything be retconned? As I already mentioned, there is absolutely no need to retcon things. Zelda games homage each other all the freakin' time. The fact is, a homage does not rewrite what we've already been told. That would just confuse the fans. Why the hell bother? Capcom might like to retcon all the time, and hell, maybe they were hinting at their own little retcon in a jokey sorta manner, but Nintendo rarely retcons anything, especially when there's no need.

Plus, what I don't understand is why a Japanese website can be used as proof but the American website (Zelda Universe) cannot (depending on the information given). I understand that the Japanese games trumph the American translations as far as canon goes, but is it really the same with websites. The American who posted inaccurate information on the American site just made some mistakes because he is human. Aren't Japanese people human as well? Aren't the Japanese just as capable of making mistakes when writing for a Zelda site as Americans are?

This is an important point I need to make here. The two things aren't particularly comparible. It's a bit like the difference between the localisations and the original Japanese language versions. Now, we all know the Japanese text is correct, usually far moreso than the translations, which have often made a few mistakes, which, while minor, have a big effect on the timeline. But the thing is, the American sites are based on the localisations, and make further mistakes and misjudgements of their own. It's like Chinese Whispers. The fact is that the Japanese websites are much closer to the original source.

Also, atop all that, the Japanese websites are often put up and designed by the actual game developers themselves. Take the Smash Bros. websites, all of which were written with direct input from Sakurai himself. Other Japanese websites have extensive in-depth information on the games, FAQs directly from the designers, interviews from the creators, hints and tips from the testers, and regular, regular updates. The American websites, on the other hand, are little more than marketing tools. I know, I know, the Japanese are human too, there are probably a few little mistakes here and there on some of their sites, but generally it's a whole world of difference, trust me, I've been observing Nintendo's Japanese site for a long while now.

That isn't to say that I think that the Japanese LA site was wrong back when LA DX came out. I just have my doubts that the Japanese LA site has been updated since the Oracles have been released, making its claim that LA takes place after ALttP debatable.

Well, this comes back to my point about retcons. Retcons are not implimented just for the hell of it. Usually when they're occur, they're big, obvious, and necessary for the direction of the series. This retcon is none of those things, and thus does not occur, simply because it causes more confusion if it does occur, because it rewrites what we've been told for no reason. It doesn't solve anything, it just makes things more confused. There's no point.

Just because Link fights Agahnim's Shadow in LA he automatically has to be ALttP Link? Why? Are you suggesting that Link has to have fought Agahnim in order to fight Agahnim's Shadow? Where did you get that from? Is it stated or implied in the games?

The final Nightmares are based on Link's own 'nightmares', they all take on forms of some of Link's more important foes (except for Death Eye). This is a fairly blatant plot point. Not expressively stated, no, but it's really quite obviously symbolic. Anyone playing LA for the first time as a sequel to ALttP will understand this reference very very well. If you played it as a sequel to the Oracle games, this reference is entirely lost, as it seems to be on you.

There is a difference between that logic and the logic that Oracles Link is the same as LA Link. The backstory of LA actually fits the story of Oracles. Link kills Ganon. Link sails away from Hyrule. These events apply to both Links. Boat or not, the order of Oracles -> LA could work.

Well, as the old ZU website showed, anything can work if you ignore certain details. LA makes more than one reference to ALttP, the final battle is not the only one. I don't really want to sit here all day and list them, though, so I'll just leave it there, I think I've gone on enough...

Edited by Fyxe, 13 June 2008 - 06:51 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Before I start with the responses, I have an issue to deal with. I do not simply think that the Oracles are LA's prequel simply because they fit better than ALttP. If anything, since AST helps connect ALttP and LA, the similarities between ALttP and LA are probably equal to those of the Oracles and LA. Why, then do I keep on believing that the Oracles overtake ALttP?

Simple. The Oracles were released later.

People seem to forget when debating that the Zelda games were released in a certain order, not all at once. ALttP was released in 1991. LA was released in 1993. AST was released in 1997. The Oracles were released in 2001.

Had it been the other way around, and the Oracles were released before ALttP and AST, then I would believe that ALttP was retconned to be LA's backstory. While the content of the Oracles helped me to make the connection to LA, it was the later release that helped me to make a final decison.

That is a big part of why I choose to believe that the Oracles were retconned to be LA's prequel over ALttP.

Now then, let me respond.

FMVs? I hope that's a knowing mistake, because they're not FMVs. At all. @.@ They're a combination of animated art and sprites. The ship was a piece of art reused and modified, much like how Zelda's sprite is Marin's sprite, but reused and modified, along with a whole shedload of similar things.

My mistake. They are not FMVs. They are videos based off the games' art.

I understand that Zelda's in-game sprite and videos based on the in-game sprite may have been based off Marin, but again, we are talking about the videos based off the official art of both games.

It just seems odd to me, that in the videos based off the games' art, the one and only sprite copied was the boat. I think it's a stretch. Everything else in the videos based off the games art is brand new, except the boat. That is very suspicious to me.

Well, the fact that Link looks like Link in various Zelda games doesn't say much. Actually, one aspect that is distinctly different is that, aside from looking somewhat younger, the Link in the Oracle games is blonder and has white tights, compared to his ALttP/LA counterpart. This is obviously because Capcom's Link is pretty much a combination of the old ALttP Link with the new OoT/MM Link, mixed together to create a fairly generic 'Link'. I would argue this is because the Link in the Oracles is not meant to be related to any other Link. However, the Link in LA was clearly meant to be related to another Link, that of the previous game. I think this is the fundamental difference here.

I agree that LA Link was meant to be related to ALttP Link, too, but only back when was released. As far as the "different look, different Link" idea goes, I again disagree, but see your point.

Obviously the ending scene is a homage to the whole Link sailing away on a new quest thing. Now, forgive me, but is it not the case that this sailing motif for Link is a pretty common theme in the series these days? The thing is, just because it's a homage doesn't mean it's a direct connection. If they had wanted to retcon the entire series, they could have done. Frankly though, there's absolutely NO REASON to retcon LA's placement. None whatsoever. Anyway, as for the art, but isn't the ending sequence a mix of art and sprites, sprites of which many were reused or modified from LA? Heck, I think some background art was reused in the Oracles as well, but I might be wrong. The fact that they reuse the ship's basic shape is not a surprise, because the ship is just another sprite.

Fair question, I don't know. I don't even know if the Oracles have a page on the Japanese Nintendo website. Should really check. But why should it be updated? Why should anything be retconned? As I already mentioned, there is absolutely no need to retcon things. Zelda games homage each other all the freakin' time. The fact is, a homage does not rewrite what we've already been told. That would just confuse the fans. Why the hell bother? Capcom might like to retcon all the time, and hell, maybe they were hinting at their own little retcon in a jokey sorta manner, but Nintendo rarely retcons anything, especially when there's no need.

Well, this comes back to my point about retcons. Retcons are not implimented just for the hell of it. Usually when they're occur, they're big, obvious, and necessary for the direction of the series. This retcon is none of those things, and thus does not occur, simply because it causes more confusion if it does occur, because it rewrites what we've been told for no reason. It doesn't solve anything, it just makes things more confused. There's no point.

A basic summary of all of these paragraphs is, "Why retcon LA to the Oracles if ALttP serves as a perfectly fine backstory already?" Good question. The fact of the matter is, though, that that isn't a choice for us to make. I totally agree that ALttP is a fine backstory for LA. No, I don't think that there was any need to retcon it from ALttP to the Oracles. It was up to Capcom, and if they felt like retconning LA to the Oracles, whether it was neccesary or not, they could have (and arguably did). "Why retcon LA?" is a moot point. If Capcom wanted to retcon LA, and Nintendo approved (I'm pretty sure the Big N had to approve the final product), then it would be a canon fact, no matter how much you or I show our disapproval online.

The point is, just because we think that the retcon wasn't neccesary, that isn't a good basis to deny that a retcon has taken place.

This is an important point I need to make here. The two things aren't particularly comparible. It's a bit like the difference between the localisations and the original Japanese language versions. Now, we all know the Japanese text is correct, usually far moreso than the translations, which have often made a few mistakes, which, while minor, have a big effect on the timeline. But the thing is, the American sites are based on the localisations, and make further mistakes and misjudgements of their own. It's like Chinese Whispers. The fact is that the Japanese websites are much closer to the original source.

Also, atop all that, the Japanese websites are often put up and designed by the actual game developers themselves. Take the Smash Bros. websites, all of which were written with direct input from Sakurai himself. Other Japanese websites have extensive in-depth information on the games, FAQs directly from the designers, interviews from the creators, hints and tips from the testers, and regular, regular updates. The American websites, on the other hand, are little more than marketing tools. I know, I know, the Japanese are human too, there are probably a few little mistakes here and there on some of their sites, but generally it's a whole world of difference, trust me, I've been observing Nintendo's Japanese site for a long while now.

First paragraph: understood.

Second paragraph: Who (a person/people, not a company) ran the Japanese LA DX website?

Even if it was someone who worked on LA, it is a moot point if that information was posted before the Oracles' release, since the alleged retcon took place after that.

The final Nightmares are based on Link's own 'nightmares', they all take on forms of some of Link's more important foes (except for Death Eye). This is a fairly blatant plot point. Not expressively stated, no, but it's really quite obviously symbolic. Anyone playing LA for the first time as a sequel to ALttP will understand this reference very very well. If you played it as a sequel to the Oracle games, this reference is entirely lost, as it seems to be on you.

Obviously symbolic of Link's nightmares to who? Everyone? An example of something that is obviously symbolic is that the backstory of the Hero of Time obviously represents the events of OoT. The idea that they are Link's own nightmares is an interpretation that one has that has no basis, beyond the fact that they are called Nightmares. Besides, Link fought every single one of the Nightmares real counterparts in the Oracles, except for maybe Agahnim, which can be solved by saying that the Agahnim like mini boss faced in one of the Oracle games was the basis for Agahnim's Shadow. That is, of course, if you buy into the unsupported idea that the Nightmares are from Link's own mind.

Well, as the old ZU website showed, anything can work if you ignore certain details. LA makes more than one reference to ALttP, the final battle is not the only one. I don't really want to sit here all day and list them, though, so I'll just leave it there, I think I've gone on enough...

Are you referring to the LA manual? The Japanese translation of the manual actually loses similarities to ALttP, as seen in the "Translation of Japanese Game Text" thread. As for the other references to ALttP in LA, I am actually curious to know what they are, as I have not played LA. I don't think that it is good enough to give me a response that is essentially, "The references are there. Just trust me." I understand that you may not want to go through the references, Fyxe, but if someone else might like to do so for me so I can have a better perspective of things, I would greatly appreciate it.

As far as I am aware, saying that the Oracles is LA's prequel doesn't ignore anything. That could change once I see these alleged references to ALttP, though. I would like some examples, please.

Edited by Vertiboy, 14 June 2008 - 01:16 AM.

[NM87]

So the Triforce is in TP, then? or is this whole post just snobbery? Either way, it is perfectly fine for a piece to just glow...in TP.

No its just glowing, its a crest.

For the record, most of my post was just brainstorming, but if you want want to call it "snobbery" that's fine. I don't even support the claims I was making, as I put LA as ALTTP sequel and OOX after AOL. Just don't give me these lame comebacks all the time like "snobbery" and "cheesy".

Edited by NM87, 13 June 2008 - 10:33 PM.

[NM87]

Because, obviously the reaction of a Princess is much more important than a huge door of rock which is said textually to be open.

Because obviously they dedicated the entire last scene to imply Zelda had never met Link before that moment. I'll sway with the wind on this, at times I'll agree it was before he pulled the sword. Right now, its before he met Zelda. Both points are valid.

[Fyxe]

as I have not played LA.

Call me an elitist, but at this point my will to respond is lost altogether. I have no desire to waste time discussing the plots of games that people have not played. You believe in a retcon with no actual, y'know, evidence (the fact that a game was released after another game is not a requirement for a retcon), for a game you have not played. That alone means you're almost certainly not likely to listen to anything I say.

I hope for your sanity that you've played the Oracles at least, else your desire to argue this point is tantamount to what I would consider to be the standpoint of a crazy person.

Alright, very quickly, since you'll think I'm copping out otherwise, not that any of this will matter to you since a small ship apparently trumps everything...

There is a line in the library that speaks of the Whirling Blade Technique as being handed down by the 'family of the hero', exactly the same way as it is described in ALttP and no other game.
Turtle Rock is the final dungeon, and is the only dungeon directly taken from any other game.
Marin is said to look like Zelda, and the only Zelda she really bares similarity with when it comes to official art is Zelda from ALttP.
Tarin also looks like Link's uncle from ALttP. If LA followed the Oracles, both of these references would be lost because Malon and Talon make an appearance in the Oracle games, and the Oracle games do not involve any of Link's relatives.
A massive shedload of the enemies are taken directly from ALttP, such as the Armos Knight, Lanmola and Moldorm. This is meant to tie into the whole 'Nightmare' thing and the fact that Link is stuck in a dreamworld. It gave them an excuse to bring back many old enemies.

There are other references, but I suggest you play the bloody game.

Edited by Fyxe, 14 June 2008 - 06:42 AM.

[Vertiboy]

Thank you, Fyxe. I appreciate it.

There is a line in the library that speaks of the Whirling Blade Technique as being handed down by the 'family of the hero', exactly the same way as it is described in ALttP and no other game.

I don't see the point. The book is simply restating something stated in ALttP. That has been many times before in Zelda. I really don't think that it is relevant.

Turtle Rock is the final dungeon, and is the only dungeon directly taken from any other game.

Many Zelda games reference locations from other Zelda games. This means nothing. Also, see the response after the next for more.

Marin is said to look like Zelda, and the only Zelda she really bares similarity with when it comes to official art is Zelda from ALttP.

Just because the official art looks similar, that doesn't automatically mean that the series are still related. I understand that Marin looks like Zelda from ALttP. The art style of ALttP was the basis of LA's art style. Back then, there was no debate that LA Link was ALttP Link.

Tarin also looks like Link's uncle from ALttP. If LA followed the Oracles, both of these references would be lost because Malon and Talon make an appearance in the Oracle games, and the Oracle games do not involve any of Link's relatives.

Malon and Talon appear in the Oracles. That could be the basis of Marin and Tarin in LA, that is if it can actually be proven that Koholint Island's settings and inhabitants have been taken from Link's mind, which has yet to be done. That is not a valid point because no one has yet given me an example of where LA says or implies that Koholint Island has been taken from Link's imagination. Until someone can prove this ponit, I don't think that this is a valid argument, whether I personally have played LA or not.

A massive shedload of the enemies are taken directly from ALttP, such as the Armos Knight, Lanmola and Moldorm. This is meant to tie into the whole 'Nightmare' thing and the fact that Link is stuck in a dreamworld. It gave them an excuse to bring back many old enemies.

Read above. Even if for some reason, though, that the island has been taken from Link's experiences, Link fought all of those enemies in the Oracles.



As far as I understand, the only things connecting LA to ALttP is the fact that LA was ALttP's undeniable sequel when it was released, and the fact that AST shows that it was most likely the creator's original intent that Link left Hyrule after ALttP. Saying that Koholint Island is taken from Link's memory has yet to be proven, so that argument is a lost cause, as far as I am aware.

What connects the Oracles to LA is that it fits LA's backstory, and the end of the game helps it fit into that backstory even more. It came out last, so it takes priority over old material. If for some reason the island comes from Link's memory, the Oracles Link encountered just about as many people, enemies, and settings as ALttP Link did. Not perfect, but close.

Why does "close enough" count? Well, take into account the fact that the timeline doesn't matter as much to the people who make the games. If Capcom made Link sail away at the end of the Oracles and intended for that to be a connection to LA, then that's what it is, no matter how much you or I disagree. Now I am not claiming to know Capcom's intent. Perhaps they were just paying homage to LA with the Oracles' ending. The fact of the matter is, though, that you cannot rule out the boat as a connection simply because it's not a "strong enough" connection for you, or because you feel like ALttP has more in common with LA.

This is where creators' intent comes into play. No matter how weak a reference is in one game to another, if the intent was for a connection to take place, then a connection exist. Let's say that it's 1995, and Miyamoto and the Zelda team are planning the next Zelda game. He wants to tell the full story of the Imprisoning War. If he chooses to take an episode of Seinfeld, then slap an ending on it in which Ganondorf is sealed in the Sacred Realm and call that the Imprisoning War, he could do so. Yes, that didn't and would probably never happen. If it did, though, it would be canon fact, whether we like it or not.

I am trying to argue the point that when making the Oracles, Capcom intended to make them the prequel to LA, made some references to LA's backstory, then slapped an ending on it where Link sails away from Hyrule in a boat (that looks suspiciously like the boat from LA).

This is the point that we can't really debate too much longer. One either believes that the creators of Zelda games scrutinizes every little detail to place their games in the timeline perfectly, or that they do whatever they want, and try to make games fit in the timeline by placing a reference that they feel is strong enough to justify their intended placement.

I would like to think that I have a pretty good idea which one is correct, but who knows...

Edited by Vertiboy, 14 June 2008 - 04:38 PM.

[Fyxe]

I don't see the point. The book is simply restating something stated in ALttP. That has been many times before in Zelda. I really don't think that it is relevant.

False. The idea that the technique had been handed down by the family of the hero was only ever mentioned in ALttP and LA, no other game. In other games, Link learns the move in alternate ways. The fact that the move was handed down as a family skill is because Link in ALttP is from the bloodline of the Knights of Hyrule. That's what LA is referencing.

Many Zelda games reference locations from other Zelda games. This means nothing.

It's the ONLY dungeon taken from another Zelda game in LA, and it didn't just borrow the name, it even looked the same. You asked for ALttP references, and there's an utterly blatant one.

Back then, there was no debate that LA Link was ALttP Link.

And who says there's a debate now? Until anyone proves a retcon, there's absolutely no need for one.

Malon and Talon appear in the Oracles. That could be the basis of Marin and Tarin in LA, that is if it can actually be proven that Koholint Island's settings and inhabitants have been taken from Link's mind, which has yet to be done.

Wow, look, how many times does it have to be said? Marin looks and sounds like Zelda, and was mistaken for Zelda, and is Link's love interest in the game. Agahnim and Ganon appear as NIGHTMARES during a dramatic final battle. You have not played the game and yet you deny these quite frankly blatant hints at it being a dreamworld. Oh, and then there's all the monsters that turned up WHEN LINK ARRIVED. I'm sorry, this will sound rude, but you need to play the FUCKING GAME. You're looking silly.

That is not a valid point because no one has yet given me an example of where LA says or implies that Koholint Island has been taken from Link's imagination. Until someone can prove this ponit, I don't think that this is a valid argument, whether I personally have played LA or not.

Oh lawd. Seriously, what the hell? Why should anyone prove the sodding obvious? Play the bloody game, stop asking people to prove things to you, see it for yourself and actually have all the facts before you argue stuff that you actually know nothing about.

Read above. Even if for some reason, though, that the island has been taken from Link's experiences, Link fought all of those enemies in the Oracles.

Um, no he didn't. Have you played the Oracles either? I'm guessing not, at this point.

What connects the Oracles to LA is that it fits LA's backstory, and the end of the game helps it fit into that backstory even more.

I'm sorry, excuse me? Other than the ship, it doesn't fix LA's backstory anymore than ALttP or even Zelda II. It doesn't fit LA more than ALttP, rather it fits it less. Incidentally, just because Link leaves on a ship doesn't mean that he's going on some kind of quest of enlightenment. If you remember, Link rides into Hyrule to begin with... Who says Link even LIVES in Hyrule in the Oracle games?

It came out last, so it takes priority over old material.

...Only if it retcons anything, and it doesn't. I don't think you understand what a retcon actually is.

Why does "close enough" count? Well, take into account the fact that the timeline doesn't matter as much to the people who make the games. If Capcom made Link sail away at the end of the Oracles and intended for that to be a connection to LA, then that's what it is, no matter how much you or I disagree. Now I am not claiming to know Capcom's intent. Perhaps they were just paying homage to LA with the Oracles' ending. The fact of the matter is, though, that you cannot rule out the boat as a connection simply because it's not a "strong enough" connection for you, or because you feel like ALttP has more in common with LA.

God, look, I haven't said it's impossible, just that without proof, it means squat. If Nintendo came out and said that yes, it was a retcon, then fine, whoop, there you go, but they haven't. As such, what they HAVE said in the past takes precidence. And even if Capcom intended it, who says Nintendo knew this was their intention? It's a ship. It's not exactly a rock solid connection. It's a bloody boat. The fact is, there remains absolutely no reason for a retcon to occur, so why oh why do you prefer to assume it's a change in the timeline rather than the much simpler explaination of a mere homage (it's not like Oracles is lacking in homages to about a billion other Zelda games).

This is where creators' intent comes into play. No matter how weak a reference is in one game to another, if the intent was for a connection to take place, then a connection exist. Let's say that it's 1995, and Miyamoto and the Zelda team are planning the next Zelda game. He wants to tell the full story of the Imprisoning War. If he chooses to take an episode of Seinfeld, then slap an ending on it in which Ganondorf is sealed in the Sacred Realm and call that the Imprisoning War, he could do so. Yes, that didn't and would probably never happen. If it did, though, it would be canon fact, whether we like it or not.

Blah blah, I've heard that argument before, but without proof of creator intent it doesn't actually come into play, does it?

made some references to LA's backstory,

Where?

One either believes that the creators of Zelda games scrutinizes every little detail to place their games in the timeline perfectly, or that they do whatever they want, and try to make games fit in the timeline by placing a reference that they feel is strong enough to justify their intended placement.

Alright, tone down your patronising ego right now and get off your high horse. I have never, ever, ever fucking argued that the creators scrutize every detail. You clearly know sod all about me to make that kind of claim. I argue the exact opposite. I argue that the creators don't care enough to retcon the timeline for no. Bloody. Reason. Nor do they care enough to worry that adding a ship into the ending will cause overanalytical 'timeline theorists' to yell OMG RETCON rather than 'ah, nice homage'.

I hate timeline 'theorists'. If it wasn't for the nerdy theorists, people would actually pay attention to what the creators say than trying to read their minds.

[Vertiboy]

I'm sorry if you interpreted my last statement negatively, Fyxe, but that was not my intention.

Anyway, let me ask you a question to which I know the answer. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to start Internet Dramaz or go off topic. All of this has a point in the debate. You care about the Zelda timeline, right? It isn't the most important thing in your life, I would guess, but it is relatively important to you. If that is not true, you could have had me fooled after the millionth time you dropped the F-bomb. Let's say that Nintendo hires you to develop the next few Zelda games. Now I can't tell you that I know specifically what you would do, but I can guess one thing: you would try to pay attention to previous games, their storylines, etc. and try to create as few continuity errors and plot holes as possible. You may even try to connect a game or two together storywise.

Something that I would guess that you would not do is retcon a bunch of details, big or small, and you would definitely not retcon the placement of any games from their previously established spaces just to fit the story that you would like to tell. This discussion has made this very obvious.

If I am wrong about this, let me know. I am not trying to say that I know you so well that I could guess your actions. I am just trying to make a point.

If the creators of the Zelda games, and the Oracles in particular, were at least as half as passionate as some of the people who debate the timeline and storyline details that have no bearing on the actually timeline, then they would retcon as little as possible, as opposed to what you have suggested.

Now let's say that I get hired to develop the next few Zelda games. I somewhat care about the timeline, simply because I find it a little interesting, but I don't take it as seriously as most of the people on this forum do. I would personally focus on a game's individual story or a few games' story arc rather than worrying about the overall storyline. If I felt that it was neccesary for the story that I wanted to tell, I would retcon a detail or two about the Triforce, Master Sword, Imprisoning War, etc. to tell that story. If I felt that it was needed, I might even retcon a game's placement in the timeline. Most likely I could find a good story that works within the current canon, but if I had to do so in order to tell my Zelda story, I would change whatever I wanted.

You suggested that the less the creators care about the timeline, the less they would retcon. I disagree. I believe that the less the creators care about the timeline, the more they will retcon.

Which is what I am suggesting happened with ALttP, LA, and the Oracles. I am saying that, theoretically, when Capcom was licensed to make a Zelda game, some employee was playing LA, and thought, "Hey, it would be cool to make kind of a backstory to the game." When pitching this potential game, someone said, "A Link to the Past is the backstory of Link's Awakening. Should we really mess with that?" Most of the employees, with a creative story as their first priority, said, "I still think that it would be a good story to write, so let's do it anyway." With that, Capcom went on to make the Oracles. They realized,however, that in order for the game to work as a prequel, they had to make it somewhat consistent with LA's backstory. They made Link kill Ganon, they made him sail away from Hyrule on a sailboat at the end, and perhaps one of them even saw Koholint Island the same way you do, Fyxe, in the sense that it was taken from Link's imagination, so they put many enemies and characters from LA as they could find into the Oracles. They packed it up, sent it out, and here we are.

Okay, I am not suggesting that is exactly what happened, but Aonuma himself has said that a game's story is considered first, and then its placement in the timeline. It just makes me wonder if this approach to a game's story hasn't been used before Aonuma era Zelda games, considering the fact that ALttP doesn't connect to TLoZ well, and the fact that OoT takes some liberties in retelling what was (at least once) the Imprisoning War.

I think that the fact that most (if not all) Zelda games were written in that fashion, combined with all of the references to LA's backstory and LA that are in the Oracles (no matter how weak you or anyone else feels that they are; also don't ask what they are because I listed them off in the paragraph two paragraphs above this one) are sufficient enough to justify (if not prove) the idea that LA has been retconned to take place after the Oracles.

To sum it all up, I believe that Capcom cared about a great story first and the previously established timeline second, which is more than enough cause for them to retcon LA to come after the Oracles.

P.S.: I have played the Oracles, and all other Zelda games besides LA. No need for attitude if I haven't directed any towards you, don't you think?

Edited by Vertiboy, 15 June 2008 - 01:41 AM.

[Fyxe]

No need for attitude if I haven't directed any towards you, don't you think?

Were it so, you might have a point, but you're been undeniably patronising and you seem to enjoy assuming you know what I'm thinking, and, since you asked, you've been getting it completely bloody wrong.

I don't care squat about nigglin' little details. I wouldn't believe OoT was intended to be the IW if I cared about every minor who-gives-a-damn detail. You're the person who is claiming that ALttP somehow doesn't connect with TLoZ (za?). I don't think the creators give a monkeys about messing up with internal logic a bit. They effectively removed the Knights of Hyrule from OoT's plot, rewrote the Gerudo's role, and completely changed the situation of the Triforce. Yet OoT was still meant to be the IW. Obviously they take liberties.

However, and I really wish I didn't have to keep saying this, but they do that sort of thing for a reason. To create a good game out of a story that wasn't intended to be a game in the first place. To take a legend and show what 'really' happened via a retcon. They had to change things, it was inevitable. But there is no reason for the Oracles to have any ounce of a connection to LA, aside obviously from using the same game engine and graphics. There is no reason whatsoever to connect the two games. It does not add any more depth to the story of the Oracle games, especially given that it's not even vaguely obvious.

As I've mentioned already, the Oracle games is full to the brim of references to other Zelda games. Many of the characters were borrowed from OoT and MM, many of the enemies were borrowed from the original Zelda, many of the items were also borrowed from recent games, such as Biggoron's Sword and Bombchus. Gorons and Zoras are given an important role and Jabu Jabu gets a big homage. If anything, the Oracle games have more connection to OoT than any other Zelda game. The fact that the ending is a possible homage to LA is a small issue drowned in a sea of other references. Hell, it's not even clear that they intended it as even a homage. They may have just been looking for a decent ending and liked the whole 'sailing into the distance' thing. Have to say, I got no indication that Link was on a quest of enlightenment of any kind, or that there was any worry in Hyrule about Ganon's return. The ending occurs, there's a bunch of happy celebration scenes, and Link leaves in high spirits. The end.

[Vertiboy]

However, and I really wish I didn't have to keep saying this, but they do that sort of thing for a reason.

Actually, I've already gave you a reason. Capcom wanted to make a game about LA's backstory. That is reason enough.

If we lived in this world that you believe exists, where Capcom paid attention to every little detail (that is what you are doing, whether you admit it or not), like some book in a library or that Tarin is based off Link's uncle, then no, there would be no reason. Unfortunately, we live in a world where details like that are sometimes ignored.

But there is no reason for the Oracles to have any ounce of a connection to LA, aside obviously from using the same game engine and graphics.

Again, I've already told you what the connection is. Link has killed Ganon, Link sails away from Hyrule, and if Koholint Island comes from Link's mind, many enemies from LA are in the Oracles. You can choose not to acknowledge that I've pointed them out to you again if you'd like, but I know that I have, and that's all that's important.

Here is what this debate comes down to: you feel that all of the connections that LA has with the Oracles are too weak to retcon LA's placement. I understand that. I am saying that given the different Zelda teams' track record for not taking the timeline as seriously as 99% of the people who debate on these forums, I could plausably see them placing all of the similarities betweeen LA and the Oracles that I listed above in order to retcon LA's placement and believe that it's good enough.

I have the fact that the Zelda teams have taken liberties in the past and the fact that they focus on the story first and timeline next on my side. If it was the opposite of that, and the creators had a history of being anal about keeping facts straight, avoiding continuity errors and plot holes, and caring about the overall timeline a little more, then your arguement would hold more ground. In that situation, I could see why you would believe why the similarities between LA and the Oracles wouldn't be enough to retcon LA's placement. That is far from the case, though. If you want to continue to follow in that misguided belief, then there is nothing I can do, and I can't really debate with you much longer, especially, if you continue to ignore things that I've said a million times.

Edited by Vertiboy, 15 June 2008 - 04:22 PM.

[Fyxe]

Capcom wanted to make a game about LA's backstory. That is reason enough.

The Oracle games have nothing to do with LA's backstory. If they had truely wished to do this as you mystically know, surely there would be more clues? Where is your proof? I have presented all the evidence to defend LA's placement after ALttP, now where is yours? No, the ship alone is not enough, it really, really isn't.

Also, way to completely not understand a single fucking word I said. I'm done with you and your rediculous attitude and your fucking twisted obsession in making my argument into some kind of personal flaw. Go talk down to someone else, I can't be arsed anymore. This was as pointless as I thought it was. You haven't even fucking played LA. This isn't worth my time.

Ohhh scary scary f-bombs~

Edited by Fyxe, 15 June 2008 - 04:37 PM.

[Raien]

Vertiboy, you seem to have misunderstood the "Nintendo doesn't care about the timeline" argument, and I should know considering I was one of the original proponents of it.

The Zelda developers have said that they develop the individual game storyline first, and timeline connections as a secondary consideration. What this means is that the main story of each game is, for the most part, unrelated to previous games. ALTTP is mostly unrelated to LoZ. LA is most unrelated to ALTTP. That's not to say some games were not developed with the timeline in mind; certainly OoT was developed as a prequel to ALTTP and TWW was developed as a sequel to OoT, but Oracles certainly does follow the rule since the main antagonists are two new characters (Onox and Veran) in two new islands.

The reason why we argue that Nintendo doesn't care about the timeline is because people have a habit of taking random quotations and/or images from different games and combining them to propose a timeline connection. What really makes a timeline connection is whether the events of one game either follow or lead into another game in a meaningful way. For example, there are two things in Oracles that would strongly suggest sequeling a previous game; the Triforce is in Hyrule and Ganon is dead. Since the endings to both ALTTP and AoL satisfy these two requirements, we can deduce that Oracles is sequel to either of those games.

While it is certainly not impossible that Oracles could lead into LA, the question we have to ask is why? LA is one of the most unimportant games in the timeline because the events are entirely unrelated to previous games. Creating deliberate connections to LA would have no meaningful purpose, and it would make no sense considering that timeline connections would need to be meaningful to be justified. And at the time of developing Oracles, LA wasn't considered a benchmark title in the series, no matter how popular it was with the hardcore fans. It would certainly be easier to justify connecting LA to ALTTP than it would be to justify connecting Oracles to LA.

You say that Oracles deliberately connects to LA because of the boat, and my argument is that it's possible. But it's also entirely possible that the boat has no significant meaning and does not connect to LA. There's no advantage to either side of the argument, and personally I don't advocate the use of visual parallels in cases like this.

[Showsni]

Like Raian, I have to wonder why you'd want to try and connect LA to OoX. It fits perfectly well where it is, you don't gain anything from the move, and you clearly lose something (judging by all the arguments against you). You can't argue creator intent in this case because as far as we know there isn't any.

Sure, it might be that LA is capable of following OoX, if you smooth out some of the rough edges. And that, in your view, is grounds for moving it, because of the later release date? Well, looks like you should place it after TWW then. Link ends it in a boat, remember!

[CID Farwin]

Ooh, it's those scary, scary retcons.

*shiver*

...

I have a perfectly rational explatation to the oracles' ending. Capcom threw together a 'frankenzelda' spin-off of sorts that pretty much includes things from every Zelda previous. (the maps look roughly like areas from LoZ/AoL, it has characters from OoT, etc.) Since the graphics are practically ripped-off of LA, they have Link end on a ship. ("just like how he starts LA! yuk! yuk! yuk!")

Quite frankly, the oracles don't 'go' anywhere.

Anyone who's played TMC should remember the Light force. Given what we're told in that game alone, it has a roughly Triforce-esque feel. With FS-A and what I've heard of PH in the picture, Nintendo obviously didn't follow this up, and the Light Force is instead the same as Force Gems and Life force, which Jumbie has revealed is all simply "Force" in Japanese.

Why bring this up? because as everyone should know, TMC and the Oracles were both made by Capcom. They may have intended for the Oracles to take the spot before LA, just like they may have intended the Light Force to be the Triforce, but quite frankly, I don't care a green rupee's worth about either, unless Nintendo decides to go through with it.

[FDL]

Because, obviously the reaction of a Princess is much more important than a huge door of rock which is said textually to be open.

Because obviously they dedicated the entire last scene to imply Zelda had never met Link before that moment. I'll sway with the wind on this, at times I'll agree it was before he pulled the sword. Right now, its before he met Zelda. Both points are valid.

Since no one else addressed this, I will. The fact that Link doesn't have Navi, has the ToC on the back of his hand, and isn't even standing in the same place seems to say to me that they meant to create a parallel from the earlier scene, not imply it was the same one. Zelda being in the courtyard and seeming surprised doesn't really compare to the DoT being open and the Triforce mark being on Link's hand.

Now back to your regularly scheduled "Is OoX before LA?" debate....

[Vertiboy]

Thank you, Raian and Showsni, for responding like a civil human being, who actually contributes to the debate, instead of repeatedly cursing, name-calling, and repeating, "THE ORACLES ARE NOT LA'S PREQUEL BECAUSE THERE IS NO NEED DESU DESU DESU CAP LOCKS IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!" I don't mind acknowledging people who talk civil to me.

The Zelda developers have said that they develop the individual game storyline first, and timeline connections as a secondary consideration. What this means is that the main story of each game is, for the most part, unrelated to previous games. ALTTP is mostly unrelated to LoZ. LA is most unrelated to ALTTP. That's not to say some games were not developed with the timeline in mind; certainly OoT was developed as a prequel to ALTTP and TWW was developed as a sequel to OoT, but Oracles certainly does follow the rule since the main antagonists are two new characters (Onox and Veran) in two new islands.

I agree that some games are made with a certain placement in line. What rules, or more importantly, whose rules, don't the Oracles follow to count as a prequel? Besides, Onox and Veran are just expansions of the backstory. LA's backstory says that after Link kills Ganon, Link sails away from Hyrule. The Oracles seems to expand on that backstory. Does it really matter who the main antagonists are in order for a game to be a prequel?

The reason why we argue that Nintendo doesn't care about the timeline is because people have a habit of taking random quotations and/or images from different games and combining them to propose a timeline connection. What really makes a timeline connection is whether the events of one game either follow or lead into another game in a meaningful way. For example, there are two things in Oracles that would strongly suggest sequeling a previous game; the Triforce is in Hyrule and Ganon is dead. Since the endings to both ALTTP and AoL satisfy these two requirements, we can deduce that Oracles is sequel to either of those games.

You are falling into the same trap that Fyxe did. You don't feel like the connections are meaningful enough according to your standards, so you dismiss them. I don't know the exact standards of Capcom's Zelda team, but if Zelda games before and after the Oracles are any indication, those standards can't be too high, and they are nowhere near as high as many people on these forums assume they are.

While it is certainly not impossible that Oracles could lead into LA, the question we have to ask is why? LA is one of the most unimportant games in the timeline because the events are entirely unrelated to previous games. Creating deliberate connections to LA would have no meaningful purpose, and it would make no sense considering that timeline connections would need to be meaningful to be justified. And at the time of developing Oracles, LA wasn't considered a benchmark title in the series, no matter how popular it was with the hardcore fans. It would certainly be easier to justify connecting LA to ALTTP than it would be to justify connecting Oracles to LA.

How does popularity or significance matter? If Capcom wanted to make a prequel LA, then they would, regardless of how popular or signficant a game is.

You say that Oracles deliberately connects to LA because of the boat, and my argument is that it's possible. But it's also entirely possible that the boat has no significant meaning and does not connect to LA. There's no advantage to either side of the argument, and personally I don't advocate the use of visual parallels in cases like this.

It isn't just the boat. It is the fact that the Oracles fits LA's backstory requirements. Link kills Ganon. Also, if you are one of the many that believes that Koholint Island takes things from Link's imagination, many people and enemies that appear in LA also appear in the Oracles. It is all of those things that lead me to believe that the Oracles/LA connections were intentionally set in place to lead people to believe that the Oracles are LA's prequel.

Like Raian, I have to wonder why you'd want to try and connect LA to OoX. It fits perfectly well where it is, you don't gain anything from the move, and you clearly lose something (judging by all the arguments against you). You can't argue creator intent in this case because as far as we know there isn't any.

Of course LA fits well after ALttP. That is where it was originally intended to go. I don't see what is lost if LA is retconned to the Oracles besides some tiny, minute details connecting LA to ALttP, which the Capcom team probably wouldn't have noticed since they were so busy trying to write a good story and make a good game instead of appeasing hardcore Zelda fans/timeline theorists getting every little detail right. That statement is supported by all of the statements that say that the timeline isn't really the first thing in mind when making a Zelda game.

Sure, it might be that LA is capable of following OoX, if you smooth out some of the rough edges. And that, in your view, is grounds for moving it, because of the later release date? Well, looks like you should place it after TWW then. Link ends it in a boat, remember!

TWW ends with a boat, but as I have said, the is more to the connection than that. The Hero of Winds kills Ganon(dorf), but Hyrule is nowhere to be found. LA's backstory says that the citizens of Hyrule, not the Great Sea, were worried about the dangers that may come. Plus, Link sails away with Tetra and the pirates, not alone. Where are they? The fact of the matter is that the setting of Hyrule instead of the Great Sea and absence of Tetra and the pirates are major plot points in TWW. Ignoring that would be a little different than ignoring something that a book in a library says, or other small details like that. I agree that a story is more important than timeline placement, but I also think that if Aonuma and the Zelda crew intended to retcon LA to TWW, they wouldn't ignore big plot details such as settings or characters who seemingly get a bad case of "Chuck Cunningham Syndrom."



Everyone is right. I cannot prove that LA has been retconned to the Oracles. I haven't been trying to "win" this debate in that sense. What I am trying to do is convince everyone not to take timeline theorizing so seriously. We can only put as much thought into our theories as the people who write the games' stories do. I try to debate from that perspective, and I try to convince others to do so, as well. Use your imagination for a second. Let's say that Capcom did in fact intend for the Oracles to be LA's prequel. It is obvious that they would put some references to LA into the Oracles, but do you think that they would worry about making every single detail, like the history of the Spin Attack in a book in the library, consistent between the two games, knowing what we know about how low on the list of priorities that the timeline is? This is the kind of thinking that I would like people to adopt, whether the debate is "ALttP->LA or OoX->LA?" "TMC first?" "OoT=IW?" and so on. If people adopted this style of thinking, the low priority of the timeline, and the LA connections in the Oracles (which "aren't good enough") would be more than enough for one to believe that it was Capcom's intent to retcon LA's placement, and so on.

I don't really see any need to continue this particular debate about ALttP, LA, and the Oracles because until people stop overthinking the timeline and start putting no more thought into their theories than the developers do while writing, debates like this will never end.

[Fyxe]

instead of repeatedly cursing, name-calling, and repeating, "THE ORACLES ARE NOT LA'S PREQUEL BECAUSE THERE IS NO NEED DESU DESU DESU CAP LOCKS IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!"

I wish I lived in this magical universe of yours where I even once responded to you like that, then maybe I could understand why you insist on personal attacks.

Edited by Fyxe, 16 June 2008 - 11:27 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

Anyone who's played TMC should remember the Light force. Given what we're told in that game alone, it has a roughly Triforce-esque feel. With FS-A and what I've heard of PH in the picture, Nintendo obviously didn't follow this up, and the Light Force is instead the same as Force Gems and Life force, which Jumbie has revealed is all simply "Force" in Japanese.

That's not correct. As I have said before, the Force in TMC does not differ from the Force in FSA and PH in any real way. It was always life force, though apparently the Minish gave this piece of Force special powers. If anything PH follows what is said in TMC, since Zelda has more Force than the usual human. And it should, since the stories were written by the same guy.

[NM87]

I don't really see any need to continue this particular debate about ALttP, LA, and the Oracles because until people stop overthinking the timeline and start putting no more thought into their theories than the developers do while writing, debates like this will never end.

Yep, you got it. Theorists (lol theorists of a video game) take everything that happens in Zelda like it was biblical. Its like all these theories and symbolisms surface out of a video game. A video game. Something a bunch of people made up to make money, not create a cult with. That's why you have everyone arguing that LA must be right after ALTTP. Sure, its much more well supported than having OOX in between the two, but no one has proven one hundred percent without a doubt LA MUST go after ALTTP. OOX could be there, and here would be a few minor problems, but nothing major that makes the placement impossible.

I hate timeline 'theorists'. If it wasn't for the nerdy theorists, people would actually pay attention to what the creators say than trying to read their minds.

You were just finished with telling him his, but you should really look at your own posts. If you want the satisfaction of knowing you had the better argument, then you did. As he stated, he wasn't trying to prove anything. Sure, there were plenty good reasons why LA should go after ALTTP, but nothing solidifies it indefinitely. I personally agree with you, but the way you go about posting about it, is reminiscent of "the nerdy theorists".

Edited by NM87, 16 June 2008 - 10:03 AM.

[Raien]

You are falling into the same trap that Fyxe did. You don't feel like the connections are meaningful enough according to your standards, so you dismiss them. I don't know the exact standards of Capcom's Zelda team, but if Zelda games before and after the Oracles are any indication, those standards can't be too high, and they are nowhere near as high as many people on these forums assume they are.

What do you mean the standards can't be too high? The only connections that exist between Zelda games are the ones that have meaning, and that's constant throughout the timeline. MM does not follow OoT because Link rides Epona, it's because Link is the Hero of Time and was given the Ocarina of Time by Zelda. PH does not follow TWW because Link is on a boat, it's because the game begins with a recollection of TWW's events and the appearance of those characters.

How does popularity or significance matter? If Capcom wanted to make a prequel to LA, then they would, regardless of how popular or signficant a game is.

But why would they want to make a prequel to LA in the first place? Let's look at FSA for example; the developers said that FSA borrowed TWW's graphics because it would be recognisable to the younger players who began with TWW, and FSA borrowed ALTTP's graphics because it would be recognisable to the Zelda veterans. These are two games which won numerous accolades in their time and raised a significant fanbase, so it made sense to use those two games for building nostalgia. LA is not in the same league as ALTTP; it is not recognisable among players in general. So what gain would Capcom get from making a prequel to LA? Why not make a game related to ALTTP or OoT, which certainly would get players interested?

It isn't just the boat. It is the fact that the Oracles fits LA's backstory requirements. Link kills Ganon. Also, if you are one of the many that believes that Koholint Island takes things from Link's imagination, many people and enemies that appear in LA also appear in the Oracles. It is all of those things that lead me to believe that the Oracles/LA connections were intentionally set in place to lead people to believe that the Oracles are LA's prequel.

I certainly believe that LA's enemies were created from his nightmares, but I also believe that Oracles re-uses sprites because they are made with the same Gameboy engine. I see where you're coming from, but as I said before, there really isn't any evidence that isn't double-edged. It can either support or diminish your argument depending on the interpretation.

[Fyxe]

but the way you go about posting about it, is reminiscent of "the nerdy theorists".

Explain? @.@ I don't deny to be fairly nerdy, but I don't get so up myself that I believe I know what the creators are thinking outside of what they tell us, which is what the theorists do. I don't 'theorise'. I have no timeline, I have no bloody clue how the games link together aside from the few things that have actually been set in stone. The theorists, in their rampant desire to connect all games in their own mind (and nowhere else) routinely ignore these fairly impenetrable connections for the sake of their own 'theories' and 'timelines'. It goes on and on, this endless cycle of making stuff up or misinterpreting things to create some form of vague order for their own heads. It's tiresome and dull, and seems limited to Zelda alone, I certainly can't think of any other series full of such crazy speculation over nothing.

[MikePetersSucks]

@Vertiboy: Release Dates. Graphics. Boats. None of this shit matters to a timeline.

[Showsni]

A timeline with fewer inconsistencies is better. That's a fact of timelining. If all other things are equal, except for one tiny detail (like a book in a library) that fits in one timeline but not another, the one where it fits is better. Creator intent means nothing, release dates mean nothing, graphics mean nothing. What we work with is the finished product, the game, as it's presented, ignoring things like "it was originally an LoZ remake" and "we reused this sprite" and "this game sold 4 million copies." They're all outside the canon.

And you're working from the assumption that LA is a sequel to Oracles! You're saying, if LA is meant to be a sequel to Oracles, then these slight inconsistencies don't matter. But you have absolutely no basis for your initial premise! "If LA follows OoX, these inconsistencies don't matter. And if these inconsistencies don't matter, LA can follow OoX." That is circular logic.

The Nightmares in LA take forms from Link's memories. Why, then, if it is a sequel to OoX, do we not see Veran, Onox or Twinrova? They should have definitely appeared, certainly being more of a presence and having a deeper impact on Link's memory than a miniboss from some temple and Ganon, who only appeared briefly to be killed within a few minutes.

[Hero of Legend]

That's a fact of timelining.

I think you are quite alone in adhering to that "fact."

Here's my idea about the timeline: The only thing that matters is creator intent. In fact, I'll go one step further and say only the intent held at this time holds any importance - original intent is useless. Everything else is only important in so far that it tells us the intent of the creators. Thus, if a new game is at conflict with or introduces new information of importance to a previous title, the story of that title must be re-evaluated. This seems to be a generally agreed upon principle in this thread (with some modification, of course - most people clearly do not believe everything in the game shows creator intent, myself included), though people deny that Vertiboy has any real justification for saying the Oracles have retconned LA's placement after ALttP.

I can't say much about that specifically. I think the argument that LA is too unimportant to bother messing with works both ways - it's the perfect title to mess with if one wishes to do so. I'm not saying there is a good reason to think they did, though if I were to come up with one, it would be that wanted a sort of "gameboy continuity." It's something I could have done, to be honest.

But no, I?m not messing with LA. There are simply not enough reasons to conclude they were truly serious about a retcon. I can?t accept it until Nintendo reaffirms the connection, and precisely because LA is such an unimportant game, that?s unlikely to ever happen ? unless of course they release a timeline like they did with the Metroid series. That's a bit unlikely at this point, however.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 16 June 2008 - 07:28 PM.