110 replies to this topic

[Jumbie]

So now you've turned this topic into a LA placement thread? How funny, and how good that I've already had my last one.
I reached the conclusion that LA can go either after ALttP or OoX. The most compelling arguments against OoX>LA are:
1. The Japanese website says ALttP>LA.
2. The two sails are different builds, it's unfortunately not just that one is rolled in and the other is spread.
There is no other compelling argument, not even AST, but these two suffice to show that it's impossible to safely determine if LA comes after ALttP or OoX.

[Vertiboy]

First let me appologize if I don't respond to everyone. I'm not doing it to be rude, I'm doing it because I'm lazy.

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.

You are right. You weren't as rude to me as I was to you. I am sorry.

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

Release dates don't always have anything to do with a timeline, but if one game is meant to take the place or alter the information in another, then the later game is almost usually the most canon.

I agree that graphics have nothing to do with the timeline, and I also agree that the boat alone has nothing to do with the timeline.




Look, here is my reason for believing that Capcom had a reason to retcon the Oracles. First, I saw some similarities between LA's backstory and the Oracles, like Link killing Ganon and sailing away from Hyrule. I was not yet convinced. Then, it hit me. Aonuma has said that stories come before timeline placement, and this is obvious, even before Aonuma-era games. Everyone knows that the creators don't put as much thought into placing "solid" evidence into games in order for us to tell the games' placement. I asked myself a question. If Capcom had intended the Oracles to be a prequel to LA, how "strong" would the evidence be according to the timeline theorist's standards, knowing what we know about how much they "care" about the timeline?

Given that they don't take the timeline anywhere near as seriously as most theorists do, I can completely seeing Capcom placing all of these references to LA in the Oracles that you consider "weak," and assuming that it would be good enough to imply a connection.

Now, this is where you have me in this debate. I don't know what Capcom would do in this situation. I can only assume that all of the similarities to LA were intended to imply a connection, since I can see people who don't take the timeline that seriously placing them into the game and saying, "Good enough." That is just a guess.

This is the reason that the timeline seems to be such a mess. Timeline theorists put more thought into their theories than the creators actually put into writing the stories and making the timeline. A few simple connections are not good enough because "the writers would obviously put more thought into connecting the two games than that." Yeah...

[Raien]

Everyone knows that the creators don't put as much thought into placing "solid" evidence into games in order for us to tell the games' placement.

I don't know where you got that impression.

LoZ > AoL because AoL referred back to the events of LoZ. Solid evidence.
ALTTP > LoZ because ALTTP referred to the origins of Hyrule, the Triforce and Ganon. Solid evidence.
OoT > ALTTP because OoT depicted the human Ganondorf from ALTTP's back story. Solid evidence.
OoT > MM because MM depicted the Hero of Time, who was said to have saved Hyrule. Solid evidence.
OoT > TWW because TWW's back story referred to the events of OoT. Solid evidence.
FS > FSA because FSA's back story told the events of FS. Solid evidence.
TMC > FS because TMC provided the origins for the Four Sword and (likely) Vaati. Solid evidence.
TWW > PH because PH referred to the events of TWW. Solid evidence.

In the above examples, I omitted LA, Oracles, FS and TP. That's five games out of fourteen that didn't provide a specific timeline placement. And of those five games, four are spin-off titles. You really don't have much of an argument if you can't accept that the timeline is mostly constructed from solid evidence.

Edited by Raian, 16 June 2008 - 10:00 PM.

[Vertiboy]

I don't know where you got that impression.

LoZ > AoL because AoL referred back to the events of LoZ. Solid evidence.
ALTTP > LoZ because ALTTP referred to the origins of Hyrule, the Triforce and Ganon. Solid evidence.
OoT > ALTTP because OoT depicted the human Ganondorf from ALTTP's back story. Solid evidence.
OoT > MM because MM depicted the Hero of Time, who was said to have saved Hyrule. Solid evidence.
OoT > TWW because TWW's back story referred to the events of OoT. Solid evidence.
FS > FSA because FSA's back story told the events of FS. Solid evidence.
TMC > FS because TMC provided the origins for the Four Sword and (likely) Vaati. Solid evidence.
TWW > PH because PH referred to the events of TWW. Solid evidence.

In the above examples, I omitted LA, Oracles, FS and TP. That's five games out of fourteen that didn't provide a specific timeline placement. And of those five games, four are spin-off titles. You really don't have much of an argument if you can't accept that the timeline is mostly constructed from solid evidence.

One could also argue that the Oracles references LA's backstory, and that could be solid evidence.

To be fair, the Oracles fit LA's backstory better than OoT fits the Imprisoning War legend in ALttP. It also makes a better connection than ALttP->TLoZ because a clear series of events aren't drawn out between ALttP and TAoL's backstory. It also works better than TMC->FS because TMC doesn't directly lead up to FS or it's backstory. The only reasons that there is any debate about ALttP, LA, and the Oracles is that people don't like the idea of an entire game's timeline placement being retcon and that people look too far into the tiny details, hoping to find something that will unlock the mystery of the timeline.

To me, the Oracles/LA connection is stronger than some of the parts of the timeline that are "contructed from solid evidence," like you have suggested.

Edited by Vertiboy, 16 June 2008 - 11:34 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

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

From my several years here, it seems to be upheld by pretty much every theorist worth listening to.

[Raien]

One could also argue that the Oracles references LA's backstory, and that could be solid evidence.

I wasn't arguing against Oracles > LA; just the statement I quoted. My point was that you need to stop trying to justify using ambiguous evidence in timeline theorising, as you have been doing alongside your Oracles > LA argument.

[Hero of Legend]

From my several years here, it seems to be upheld by pretty much every theorist worth listening to.

Then point me to such a theorist, because other than Showsni and a few other people who do not post often, I do not know of any. Like I said, everyone in this thread have been arguing about if it is worth considering if Capcom retconned LA's placement, using evidence from the games to support their claims. Why would they care about what Capcom did or did not do (and what Nintendo thinks now) if they did not think creator intent was important? This is a general question - if anyone disagrees, feel free to speak up.

[MikePetersSucks]

Just because someone considers in-universe "fact" as one of their main priorities of theorizing doesn't mean they don't consider Creator's Intent. I can cite Showsni, Jumbie, Myself, Fyxe, Lionharted, etc. etc. Pretty much everyone I know well enough aside from Vertiboy and a few others.

[Hero of Legend]

Showsni said in this very thread that he does not care about creator intent. Not a good example, in other words.

Moreover, considering I was objecting to his notion that creator intent does not matter, and in-game continuity is everything that a theorist should be concerned with, I think my response was appropriate. You are just juxtaposing needlessly for the sake of it, and if you think I only care about second guessing the creators, you have not understood me properly. I meant what I said, in-game facts are important because they tell us the intent of the creators, but also like I said, we all go about it differently, and others might not see it as clear-cut as I do. Of course we all have our rules, things we hold sacred no matter what, but that does not mean we do not ultimately consider creator intent when we create ?the timeline.? Otherwise it?s just a pointless bunch of fan fiction.

I don't wish to speak for others, so again, people, speak up if you disagree.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 17 June 2008 - 03:14 PM.

[Jumbie]

Personally, if there is clear creator intent visible, I would favour it over contrary in-game statements. While that's not often the case, I can cite as an example the OoT+ALttP connection, where creator intent definitely overrides in-game details.

I've also said earlier in this thread that OoT's ending would be much better deciphered if people looked at it from the developers' point of view, instead of trying to force sense onto meaningless details caused by gameplay mechanics...

[Showsni]

Those are two different statements, really.

Fact: "All other things being equal, a timeline with fewer contradictions is better." I don't think you can argue that. (Well, you have to weight the contradictions, obviously.)

Don't let my views on creator intent sully that... They're really an argument for another thread. I didn't say that "A timeline contradicting creator intent is better than one with internal contradictions," even if I personally believe that.

Look, here is my reason for believing that Capcom had a reason to retcon the Oracles. First, I saw some similarities between LA's backstory and the Oracles, like Link killing Ganon and sailing away from Hyrule. I was not yet convinced. Then, it hit me. Aonuma has said that stories come before timeline placement, and this is obvious, even before Aonuma-era games. Everyone knows that the creators don't put as much thought into placing "solid" evidence into games in order for us to tell the games' placement. I asked myself a question. If Capcom had intended the Oracles to be a prequel to LA, how "strong" would the evidence be according to the timeline theorist's standards, knowing what we know about how much they "care" about the timeline?

We know the creators don't overly care about the storyline. OoX are actually pretty unique in that the storyline was developed before the gameplay; this meant the team had to keep going back and changing things as the gameplay changed. But surely they'd have mentioned LA at some point if this was what they wanted to do? OoX was cut down from 6 games to 3 to 2. It was planned as some remakes and some new games. The theme of Ages/Wisdom changed from colours to time periods, and the theme of Courage (time of day) was lost entirely. Miyamoto was called in to help. For the first year, lots of money was spent and no work done. We know a lot about OoX's creation process, and it has never been mentioned that they planned it as a sequel.

[Vertiboy]

Since I am presented with the same responses multiple times, I think that I should take a post to explain belief in the retcon of LA for a second.

Many of you have said that there is no good reason to believe that LA has been retconned to the Oracles sequel when ALttP has done just fine. My response to that is that the creators are more interested in finding a good story to tell than the overall timeline. If Capcom felt like giving LA a new backstory, then that is what the Oracles are, no matter how well ALttP has served as LA's prequel.

I also hear some of you saying that you do not believe that there are enough references to LA's backstory in the Oracles for one to rightfully assume that they are LA's new prequel. You do not believe that Link killing Ganon and sailing away from Hyrule at the end are enough references. How many more references should Capcom have placed into the Oracles to make it clearer if, in fact, an Oracles/LA arc was their intent? Could Link have said, "brb, goin 2 train," with the Hyruleans on the shore yelling back, "k watch out 4 storms lol"? I guess Capcom could just remake LA yet again throwing in tons of small references to the Oracles. Also, let's not forget the fact that Capcom's, as well as all of the Zelda teams who worked on all of the games, seem not to take the timeline as seriously as hardcore Zelda timeline theorists would like. I could see Capcom assuming that the Oracles' references to LA's backstory would be enough to let the player know that those games are LA's backstory. Also, the Oracle's leads up to LA a little more seamlessly than some other story arcs that are canon facts. The connection is stronger than those of OoT -> ALttP, TMC -> FS, and OoT -> TP.

Fyxe, and I think others, have brought up that Link is absent from Hyrule (and this absence is mentioned, not just implied) in Ancient Stone Tablets, which shows that it was the creators' intent for Link to leave Hyrule after ALttP. I agree that the game fits in with the original ALttP -> LA story arc, but I don't think that things wouldn't be different if it weren't for LA. Let me explain this. AST is, as far as gameplay is concerned, A Link to the Past Master Quest, from what I've heard. I honestly think that, had LA not been made, the whole aspect of Link leaving Hyrule wouldn't have been present in AST. It would simply be a remake of ALttP with the boy or girl, just like BS TLoZ was a remake of TLoZ with a boy or girl. It probably wouldn't have fit into the original ALttP -> LA arc. Basically, AST's story probably exist because of LA, not because the creators' intent was that Link would leave Hyrule all along. I don't know this for sure, though, so I won't neccesarily count this against the ALttP -> LA connection.

Sorry, I can't really respond to everyone, but since I've started working more hours and have a son now, it is hard to spend as much time on the forums.

[jacensolo06]

I also hear some of you saying that you do not believe that there are enough references to LA's backstory in the Oracles for one to rightfully assume that they are LA's new prequel. You do not believe that Link killing Ganon and sailing away from Hyrule at the end are enough references.

I don't see how you can think that Link killing Ganon and sailing away from Hyrule is reason enough to believe Capcom intended the Oracles to be the back story to LA. I think it's much more likely that Capcom put in killing Ganon because, well, it's a Zelda game. You defeat Ganon at the end of the majority of Zelda games. And the sailing away at the end could have been an homage to LA, but if it was, it was just another homage among the myriad of homages in the Oracles. Also, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with LA because sailing off into the distance is a very common ending to stories.

[Doopliss]

Showsni said in this very thread that he does not care about creator intent. Not a good example, in other words.

Moreover, considering I was objecting to his notion that creator intent does not matter, and in-game continuity is everything that a theorist should be concerned with, I think my response was appropriate. You are just juxtaposing needlessly for the sake of it, and if you think I only care about second guessing the creators, you have not understood me properly. I meant what I said, in-game facts are important because they tell us the intent of the creators, but also like I said, we all go about it differently, and others might not see it as clear-cut as I do. Of course we all have our rules, things we hold sacred no matter what, but that does not mean we do not ultimately consider creator intent when we create ?the timeline.? Otherwise it?s just a pointless bunch of fan fiction.

I don't wish to speak for others, so again, people, speak up if you disagree.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that we find a blatant contradiction in a game, or in two games which have been practically developed by the same team. How would we know what were the creators' intentions? For, if there is a contradiction we must either deem the entire game or set of games completely false, at least in the aspect they contradict each other, or choose one of the two facts that contradict each other as true, and the other false.

[Hero of Legend]

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that we find a blatant contradiction in a game, or in two games which have been practically developed by the same team. How would we know what were the creators' intentions? For, if there is a contradiction we must either deem the entire game or set of games completely false, at least in the aspect they contradict each other, or choose one of the two facts that contradict each other as true, and the other false.

Clearly then we must decide which one is true, if any. If the contradiction exists between two separate games, the more recent one takes precedence as the latest look into the creators minds, assuming it is not simply a mistake (like a spelling error or some such). If the contradiction exists within one single game, the one that makes the most sense given the context would be considered true, though in cases where this is hard to determine, it would be reasonable to say it is up to the individual theorist to decide which one is more likely. And of course, if a latter game gives indication that another game (or series of games) has been completely written out of the continuity, that would be the case as well, and it would not be included in the canon timeline.

Also, in case you are arguing this example would lead us to believe the creators have no intentions, or conflicting intentions, that's obviously not true. Each game is clearly focused and has a point, so again, we go by the latest game.

At least, that's how I work. To me, the point of this is to make sense of new games and the series as a whole. That could only be achieved if we concern ourselves with the intent of the ones making the games.

[FDL]

Personally, if there is clear creator intent visible, I would favour it over contrary in-game statements. While that's not often the case, I can cite as an example the OoT+ALttP connection, where creator intent definitely overrides in-game details.

I've also said earlier in this thread that OoT's ending would be much better deciphered if people looked at it from the developers' point of view, instead of trying to force sense onto meaningless details caused by gameplay mechanics...

So what about the fact that Zelda tells Link to close the DoT? What about the matter with the Hylian Shield? And why have the ToC on Link's hand(and have Navi not be there) at all if they were trying to imply that this was the initial scene all over again? Your theory is pretty good, but I don't see how you could act like Zelda looking in a window somehow proves that the creators intended Link to have gone back to before he even met Zelda. Perhaps if you explain it in more detail I'd understand it better.

Oh yeah, and if you believe that Ganondorf never entered the SR what do you make of him seemingly imitating the Triforce when he speaks to Zant?

Edited by Fierce Deity Link, 18 June 2008 - 01:36 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Also, the Oracle's leads up to LA a little more seamlessly than some other story arcs that are canon facts. The connection is stronger than those of OoT -> ALttP, TMC -> FS, and OoT -> TP.

HOW?

Fyxe, and I think others, have brought up that Link is absent from Hyrule (and this absence is mentioned, not just implied) in Ancient Stone Tablets, which shows that it was the creators' intent for Link to leave Hyrule after ALttP. I agree that the game fits in with the original ALttP -> LA story arc, but I don't think that things wouldn't be different if it weren't for LA. Let me explain this. AST is, as far as gameplay is concerned, A Link to the Past Master Quest, from what I've heard. I honestly think that, had LA not been made, the whole aspect of Link leaving Hyrule wouldn't have been present in AST. It would simply be a remake of ALttP with the boy or girl, just like BS TLoZ was a remake of TLoZ with a boy or girl. It probably wouldn't have fit into the original ALttP -> LA arc. Basically, AST's story probably exist because of LA, not because the creators' intent was that Link would leave Hyrule all along. I don't know this for sure, though, so I won't neccesarily count this against the ALttP -> LA connection.

This is really grasping for straws.

[Jumbie]

So what about the fact that Zelda tells Link to close the DoT?

The Door of Time and Master Sword also exist in the adult timeline where they need to find closure. I'm not saying that adult Link personally went to the ToT and put the sword back, but somehow it must've been done.
When young Link is sent back, we see that he never actually touched the Master Sword in this new timeline, so he couldn't literally lay it to rest - the MS has always rested in its pedestal here.
I do believe that the DoT closed after Link stepped out of the MS chamber. My conclusion: Approaching from the MS chamber, the DoT cannot remain shut, and approaching from the temple hall, the DoT cannot remain open (without the keys).

All of that means Zelda's words did not describe literal facts, yet they still don't contradict reality.

What about the matter with the Hylian Shield?

It's an item Link could carry as a child, so if he brings it back from the future, its place is taken by a child timeline equivalent (summoned from the bazaar). This works like time-travel in MM which I described earlier. In other words: gameplay mechanics.

And why have the ToC on Link's hand(and have Navi not be there) at all if they were trying to imply that this was the initial scene all over again?

You seem to misunderstand me, I don't say the courtyard scene is a flashback. Since I don't, your doubts should be self-explanatory:
We were shown that Navi left Link, so of course she cannot accompany him back to Zelda. I say "back" because, even though Link has never been to Zelda in this new timeline, he has been to her in the past of the adult timeline.

(One thing that some people don't realise is that the child and adult timelines in OoT are by no means split, they are one intact line, proven by its self-consistency regarding the Song of Storms and Nabooru's enslavement. The split only ever comes to pass by Zelda sending Link back the last time, which creates the all-new MM+TP timeline.)

As for Link having the Triforce, it's because Link (he as an entity, including his soul that travelled time) is still marked as the chosen one with the ToC crest. Therefore, he instantly receives his ToC in the new timeline, disrupting the Triforce and triggering the "divine prank" years later.

Your theory is pretty good, but I don't see how you could act like Zelda looking in a window somehow proves that the creators intended Link to have gone back to before he even met Zelda. Perhaps if you explain it in more detail I'd understand it better.

I'm certain that Zelda looking through the window means she's watching Ganondorf. Sure, it's all fine to say the gardens are her favourite place to be, but if so, she would just sit in the flower field instead of hanging around that window all day. She has zero reason to stare into the throne room (if she wants to see it she can just go in), unless something's going on where she cannot be present: Ganondorf's visit.

Arguing that Zelda's hobby is window-watching is just silly. It's one thing to say she is nosy, but another to say she enjoys wasting her time observing the throne room for no reason. And we cannot assume there is another important event for her to spy on when the only such event we were shown was Ganondorf's audience.
It's just totally implausible for Link to encounter Zelda in the exact same position when the circumstances are not also the same.

The developers didn't even think that deeply about it. They just took it for granted that the players would recognize that scene and the circumstances of back then as being the moment where Zelda spied on Ganondorf. How I know that? It's simply so obvious.
The times when I personally didn't find it so obvious yet, were times when I was desperately trying to prove a certain game placement, which naturally affects one's ability to look at things from the developer's eyes.

Oh yeah, and if you believe that Ganondorf never entered the SR what do you make of him seemingly imitating the Triforce when he speaks to Zant?

An homage to ALttP without the slightest storyline implications. Exactly like Ganondorf's final line, "blood-smeared history of light and darkness", which has been revealed to be an homage to "Hyrule's blood-smeared history of darkness" from OoT's Shadow Temple.

[Vertiboy]

Why do people keep mentioning the Japanese LA DX site that probably hasn't been updated in like 10 years? Yes, 10 years ago, the intent was for LA Link to be ALttP Link. The Oracles hadn't been released to challenge ALttP as LA's prequel at that time. I have a book from the 1940s written by a doctor that says smoking is healthy, and even though reports have been published since then to challenge and disprove that claim, I will just go ahead and believe the 1940s book...

Anyway...

HOW?

Take a look for yourself.

You, who regained the peace of Hyrule from the demonic hands of the king of evil, Ganon, had not enjoyed the achieved tranquility for too long, and had embarked on a journey of training in preparation for new disasters.

One day, when your training in foreign countries was over, you were on your way sailing back to beloved Hyrule.

Those are all of the events that we know about leading up to LA's intro video. In these events, Link kills Ganon, and Link leaves Hyrule (I would think that he would have left by sea if he is returning by sea). Link does both of these in the Oracles. The events described in LA's backstory can be used to literally describe what happened in the Oracles.

How much of the IW legend literally matches the events of OoT? Some people question if OoT was ever intended to be the IW because of these differences.

At the end of TMC, Vaati is presumably dead, not in the Four Sword. The ending of TMC does not lead up to FS's backstory.

TP never specifically mentions any events of OoT. If it weren't for Aonuma saying that TP takes place in the child timeline (not in those exact words, though), one might even assume that TP isn't connected to OoT at all.

I understand that you probably don't agree.

This is really grasping for straws.

My point is that AST doesn't make creators' intent clear. Was Link absent from Hyrule in AST because the creators always intended for him to be absent after ALttP, even before writting LA, or is he absent only because he was absent from Hyrule in LA, not because that was always the intent?

I understand that you probably don't agree.



The reason that I am coloring this part is to draw everyone's attention to it. I don't want people to think that it is part of the response above. Hey! Look here! Okay, now that I have your attention, I want to try to simplify this debate as much as possible. It might help cut down on all of the paragraphs with quotes, then a response, then another quote... I won't really reply to any responses I get for the above statements unless I feel that the points made are really great. Again, with a son and job, I don't have as much time to spend on the forums. Okay, I will ask one question, to which it should have a relatively simple answer. Not that there is a right answer because it is a subjective question. Here it is:

If it had been Capcom's intent to make the Oracles the prequel to Link's Awakening, what references to Link's Awakening, beyond those already in the game (killing Ganon, sailing away from Hyrule) do you think should have been placed into the games?

Edited by Vertiboy, 18 June 2008 - 08:34 PM.

[SOAP]

Personally I don't see why people make a big deal if some people interpret Oracles as a retcon prequel to LA. It doesn't take away from the series and in fact it adds more than to have it just hanging around like a sore thumb anywhere else. Placing it after ALttP seems to be the popular placement but Ganon dies at the end of Oracles so it doesn't help (nor harm) bridging the gap between ALttP and LoZ anymore than if Oracles never happened. Same with putting Oracles after LoZ, it does nothing for the timeline. However placing it between ALttP and LA with the same link and Zelda reveals a smoother transition between ALttP and LA. I can understand people getting hung up with Zelda having to reintroduce herself to Link as if it were their first time meeting in person, but to get nitpicky about whether a sail is up or down or the mast is too short or too high I have to put my foot down. Now I know similarities in art style or using the same graphics don't hold much water but going the extreme opposite and zeroing in on very, very minor differences is just as bad. I say both sides of this argument are grasping for straws here.

As far as speculations go, we have to make personal judgement calls at some point. If we went by just by what the final product gives us we'd end up with a timeline like:

ALttP/LA -> LoZ/AoL

OoT/MM

OoS/OoA

OoT -> TWW/PH

TMC/FS/FSA

OoT -> TP

Anything beyond that would be mere speculation. And I think I was being pretty generous with ALttP/LA -> LoZ/AoL. Now some people don't mind having a bunch of free floating timelines that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Other people want a more cohesive timeline or at least keep it down to two or three semi-related timelines. No matter how you look at it, you'll have to make several assumptions here and there in order to do so. Claiming the games, beyond obvious direct sequels, are meant to connect at all is an assumption in itself and every connection you make requires another assumption. So I think it rather unfair to knock someone for theorizes that Oracles is a retcon prequel to LA as being just speculation when it doesn't make as many assumptions as say OoT being a retcon IW.

Edited by SOAP, 18 June 2008 - 09:56 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Why do people keep mentioning the Japanese LA DX site that probably hasn't been updated in like 10 years? Yes, 10 years ago, the intent was for LA Link to be ALttP Link. The Oracles hadn't been released to challenge ALttP as LA's prequel at that time. I have a book from the 1940s written by a doctor that says smoking is healthy, and even though reports have been published since then to challenge and disprove that claim, I will just go ahead and believe the 1940s book...

Fallacy. We KNOW smoking is bad for you. You have yet to prove that OOX is LA's new backstory.

Those are all of the events that we know about leading up to LA's intro video. In these events, Link kills Ganon, and Link leaves Hyrule (I would think that he would have left by sea if he is returning by sea). Link does both of these in the Oracles. The events described in LA's backstory can be used to literally describe what happened in the Oracles.

How much of the IW legend literally matches the events of OoT? Some people question if OoT was ever intended to be the IW because of these differences.

At the end of TMC, Vaati is presumably dead, not in the Four Sword. The ending of TMC does not lead up to FS's backstory.

TP never specifically mentions any events of OoT. If it weren't for Aonuma saying that TP takes place in the child timeline (not in those exact words, though), one might even assume that TP isn't connected to OoT at all.

I understand that you probably don't agree.

That doesn't even begin to answer my question, thank you. The intro to LA works against you, anyway, as it says that Link is on a quest for enlightenment having come from Hyrule, and that people in Hyrule are worried about Ganon's return. I doubt news even got to Hyrule about the whole incomplete Ganon resurrection, Link came from Holodrum/Labrynna otherwise in your theory, and there was no mention in OOX of his quest for enlightenment.

My point is that AST doesn't make creators' intent clear. Was Link absent from Hyrule in AST because the creators always intended for him to be absent after ALttP, even before writting LA, or is he absent only because he was absent from Hyrule in LA, not because that was always the intent?

Your point is basically "Would AST still be this if this game never happened?" That's like...the weakest point I've ever fucking seen on this forum, and that's astounding.

If it had been Capcom's intent to make the Oracles the prequel to Link's Awakening, what references to Link's Awakening, beyond those already in the game (killing Ganon, sailing away from Hyrule) do you think should have been placed into the games?

Maybe a reference to Link going off to find enlightenment, or perhaps seeing a silhouette of the Wind Fish or a storm brewing in the distance, or even something like "But this was not the last of Link's adventures..."

[CID Farwin]

That doesn't even begin to answer my question, thank you. The intro to LA works against you, anyway, as it says that Link is on a quest for enlightenment having come from Hyrule, and that people in Hyrule are worried about Ganon's return. I doubt news even got to Hyrule about the whole incomplete Ganon resurrection, Link came from Holodrum/Labrynna otherwise in your theory, and there was no mention in OOX of his quest for enlightenment.

[...]

Maybe a reference to Link going off to find enlightenment, or perhaps seeing a silhouette of the Wind Fish or a storm brewing in the distance, or even something like "But this was not the last of Link's adventures..."

Now that's a good argument; it would have been easy for Capcom to drop an 'enlightenment' reference somewhere (like the Triforce at the beginning.)

It's possible, though that members of the team making the Oracles had less meticulous knowledge of LA and its backstory than most of us here.(just a thought)

Personally I don't see why people make a big deal if some people interpret Oracles as a retcon prequel to LA. It doesn't take away from the series and in fact it adds more than to have it just hanging around like a sore thumb anywhere else. Placing it after ALttP seems to be the popular placement but Ganon dies at the end of Oracles so it doesn't help (nor harm) bridging the gap between ALttP and LoZ anymore than if Oracles never happened. Same with putting Oracles after LoZ, it does nothing for the timeline. However placing it between ALttP and LA with the same link and Zelda reveals a smoother transition between ALttP and LA. I can understand people getting hung up with Zelda having to reintroduce herself to Link as if it were their first time meeting in person, but to get nitpicky about whether a sail is up or down or the mast is too short or too high I have to put my foot down. Now I know similarities in art style or using the same graphics don't hold much water but going the extreme opposite and zeroing in on very, very minor differences is just as bad. I say both sides of this argument are grasping for straws here.

As far as speculations go, we have to make personal judgement calls at some point. If we went by just by what the final product gives us we'd end up with a timeline like:

ALttP/LA -> LoZ/AoL

OoT/MM

OoS/OoA

OoT -> TWW/PH

TMC/FS/FSA

OoT -> TP

Anything beyond that would be mere speculation. And I think I was being pretty generous with ALttP/LA -> LoZ/AoL. Now some people don't mind having a bunch of free floating timelines that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Other people want a more cohesive timeline or at least keep it down to two or three semi-related timelines. No matter how you look at it, you'll have to make several assumptions here and there in order to do so. Claiming the games, beyond obvious direct sequels, are meant to connect at all is an assumption in itself and every connection you make requires another assumption. So I think it rather unfair to knock someone for theorizes that Oracles is a retcon prequel to LA as being just speculation when it doesn't make as many assumptions as say OoT being a retcon IW.

I completely agree.

Edited by CID Farwin, 19 June 2008 - 12:41 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Maybe a reference to Link going off to find enlightenment, or perhaps seeing a silhouette of the Wind Fish or a storm brewing in the distance, or even something like "But this was not the last of Link's adventures..."

Meh, you are the only one who has answered the question so far. Oh, well. I'll give it some more time. Good ideas.

Since no one else answered the question yet, I'll go ahead and discuss these points more with you.

Fallacy. We KNOW smoking is bad for you. You have yet to prove that OOX is LA's new backstory.

True. The point is, however, that a website that hasn't been updated in about 10 years may not neccesarily have up-to-date information.

That doesn't even begin to answer my question, thank you. The intro to LA works against you, anyway, as it says that Link is on a quest for enlightenment having come from Hyrule, and that people in Hyrule are worried about Ganon's return. I doubt news even got to Hyrule about the whole incomplete Ganon resurrection, Link came from Holodrum/Labrynna otherwise in your theory, and there was no mention in OOX of his quest for enlightenment.

If it actually worked against the Oracles/LA, then someone in the Oracles would have said, "Good luck on your journey to find treasure," or whatever. It would actually contradict what is stated in the Oracles. That's not the case, though. Since the Oracles are ambiguous on Link's motive to leave Hyrule, the idea that it is for enlightenment/training could fit.

Let's compare it to the Imprisoning War legend and OoT. The IW legend states that many soldiers fought the enemies that emerged from the Dark World before it was sealed. We don't see any soldiers waging war in OoT, and we don't hear about it, either. The closest thing to a "war" in OoT that we hear about is the battle between Ganondorf's men and Hyrule Castle, which was over quickly (according to Sheik). My interpretation of this is that, during the 7-year interval in which Link is absent from Hyrule, the knights of Hyrule fought against Ganondorf's army of monsters from the Dark World. Just because we don't see or hear about a war being waged during that 7-year interval, that doesn't mean that it happened. All we know about that time (which would relate to the IW battles) would be that Ganondorf took control of Hyrule. If one believes that OoT is (or at least at once was) intended to be the IW, then information from both games can be used to fill in the gaps where information is limited or ambiguous.

I do the same with the Oracles and LA. No, the Oracles doesn't say that Link's quest at the end is one for training, but LA's backstory can be used to help fill in the gaps.

I think that this is worth noting, as well. Had Link left Hyrule by land, magic, etc. (airplane?) at the end of the Oracles, I probably wouldn't believe in an Oracles/LA timeline connection. Since for some reason, Capcom chose to make Link to travel by sea, just as Link had done in LA, which lead me (and some others) to believe that the Oracles were LA's prequel.

Your point is basically "Would AST still be this if this game never happened?" That's like...the weakest point I've ever fucking seen on this forum, and that's astounding.

Gimme a break! I was tired!

[MikePetersSucks]

True. The point is, however, that a website that hasn't been updated in about 10 years may not neccesarily have up-to-date information.

So? A site doesn't need to be updated if there's nothing to update it with. This is like blaming a 1960 Medical Book for not publishing the theory that Smoking leads to AIDS, even though a lot of Smokers have AIDS and they look like they can be connected when not studied under scrutiny.

If it actually worked against the Oracles/LA, then someone in the Oracles would have said, "Good luck on your journey to find treasure," or whatever. It would actually contradict what is stated in the Oracles. That's not the case, though. Since the Oracles are ambiguous on Link's motive to leave Hyrule, the idea that it is for enlightenment/training could fit.

Too bad Link isn't leaving HYRULE either way.

Let's compare it to the Imprisoning War legend and OoT.

Let's not. OOX and LA are nothing like the Imprisoning War and OOT.

I think that this is worth noting, as well. Had Link left Hyrule by land, magic, etc. (airplane?) at the end of the Oracles, I probably wouldn't believe in an Oracles/LA timeline connection. Since for some reason, Capcom chose to make Link to travel by sea, just as Link had done in LA, which lead me (and some others) to believe that the Oracles were LA's prequel.

LOL HOMAGE!!!! Just like the hundreds of other HOMAGES!!!

God, PH would make a better prequel than OOX, why aren't you arguing that? Because you know it's built on strenuous evidence and doesn't fit as well as LTTP and LA. This is how everyone else feels with OOX and LA.

Gimme a break! I was tired!

Too damn bad. You shouldn't be arguing to support a weak-as-dirt theory when you're tired. That crap'll get you humiliated on a public debate.

[Jumbie]

Too bad Link isn't leaving HYRULE either way.

Oh yes he is. The beach clearly belongs to Hyrule because we see Hyrule Castle in the background.

LOL HOMAGE!!!! Just like the hundreds of other HOMAGES!!!

Homages are usually recognizable as such. If you say the ship in Oracles is an homage, you could also say the Master Sword in the forest in TP is an homage to ALttP.

[Raien]

If you say the ship in Oracles is an homage, you could also say the Master Sword in the forest in TP is an homage to ALttP.

It probably is. At least I think it is.

Edited by Raian, 20 June 2008 - 02:49 PM.

[Doopliss]

Too bad Link isn't leaving HYRULE either way.

Oh yes he is. The beach clearly belongs to Hyrule because we see Hyrule Castle in the background.

Yes, some time ago it had already been established that it is quite clear that Link parts off Hyrule in the Oracle's ending.

We are not completely sure that Oracles, then LA, but why would that not be possible? It seems quite good-fitting to me.

[Vertiboy]

So? A site doesn't need to be updated if there's nothing to update it with. This is like blaming a 1960 Medical Book for not publishing the theory that Smoking leads to AIDS, even though a lot of Smokers have AIDS and they look like they can be connected when not studied under scrutiny.

I know that there is nothing to update the site about. LA DX came out over 10 years ago. I am just saying that the site's information is based on the information at that time. Back before the Oracles came out, LA was the unquestionable sequel to ALttP. Even now, it is hard to argue that that was the original intent. Time has passed since the site has been last updated, and since then, the Oracles have challenged ALttP as LA's prequel. An old website that hasn't been updated since years before the Oracles came out and possibly changed things can't really be used as a source for a current debate.

Too bad Link isn't leaving HYRULE either way.

Look in the background when Link is waving goodbye to the people at the end of the Oracles. There is a castle. Since there is no castle in present day Labrynna or Holodrum, the land Link is leaving is most likely Hyrule.

Let's not. OOX and LA are nothing like the Imprisoning War and OOT.

I made the comparisons. They exist. It is not my problem if you can't comprehend them or just feel like ignoring them for the convienence of your side of the discussion.

LOL HOMAGE!!!! Just like the hundreds of other HOMAGES!!!

God, PH would make a better prequel than OOX, why aren't you arguing that? Because you know it's built on strenuous evidence and doesn't fit as well as LTTP and LA. This is how everyone else feels with OOX and LA.

The Hero of Winds saved the Great Sea from Ganon, not Hyrule, and he left to sail with Tetra and the pirates, not to train, if I remember PH's introduction correctly. No, it would not make a better prequel to LA than the Oracles. I have presented you with reasons. If the response to this is the same as above (essentially, "No, I disagree, but I won't give reasons why because I actually don't have any; I just want to disagree.), then I will just ignore it. The same goes for any other response that is basically the same statement.

Also, I'm curious as to why every time someone finds evidence in a game that potentially disproves anothers' theory, so the others just claim it is a "homage."

Too damn bad. You shouldn't be arguing to support a weak-as-dirt theory when you're tired. That crap'll get you humiliated on a public debate.

Weak as dirt to who? You and everyone else who have to overanalyze everything? Who take the timeline more serious than the creators? Who wouldn't accept the Oracles/LA retcon even if it was a proven fact simply because you don't like that kind of change?

As I've said before, the idea that Capcom would think that Link killing Ganon and leaving Hyrule in a sailboat would be enough to prove an Oracles/LA connection is more consistent with what we know about the creators' (low) priority of the overall timeline and simple connection of 2-3 game story arcs. I've said this many times, and every response has essentially been, "Yeah, I agree, but [some statement contradicting the previous one]." Does anyone actually believe that and follow through with it during a debate? That's what I've tried to do. Most of the people I've seen on this and other Zelda forums don't act like they believe that.

I like to represent common sense. Why take the timeline any more seriously than the creators do? I used to be like the people on this forum who really get into a debate about something stupid like, "ganondorf is stronger than that he could beat link if he weren't using the...tl;dr" or whatever just to prove a point i a timeline. Some may ask why I've spent so much time here, somewhat going into depth. The answer is simple: in order to talk to people who overanalyze the timeline, I must speak a language that they understand.

Is there anyone on this forum who really believes that the creators don't take the timeline too seriously?

[MikePetersSucks]

since then, the Oracles have challenged ALttP as LA's prequel.

No, it hasn't. You just say it did.

Look in the background when Link is waving goodbye to the people at the end of the Oracles. There is a castle. Since there is no castle in present day Labrynna or Holodrum, the land Link is leaving is most likely Hyrule.

Doh. Can't believe I missed that.

I made the comparisons. They exist. It is not my problem if you can't comprehend them or just feel like ignoring them for the convienence of your side of the discussion.

I ignore them because they're irrelevant.

Weak as dirt to who? You and everyone else who have to overanalyze everything? Who take the timeline more serious than the creators? Who wouldn't accept the Oracles/LA retcon even if it was a proven fact simply because you don't like that kind of change?

I love how you always assume shit about the people you're debating with. What are you, a Young Earth Creationist in a Science debate?

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.

I like to represent common sense. Why take the timeline any more seriously than the creators do? I used to be like the people on this forum who really get into a debate about something stupid like, "ganondorf is stronger than that he could beat link if he weren't using the...tl;dr" or whatever just to prove a point i a timeline. Some may ask why I've spent so much time here, somewhat going into depth. The answer is simple: in order to talk to people who overanalyze the timeline, I must speak a language that they understand.

You don't represent common sense, don't kid yourself.

Is there anyone on this forum who really believes that the creators don't take the timeline too seriously?

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.

[Raien]

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 the timeline.

This is exactly what I said before. Glad someone agrees with me.

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?

Edited by Raian, 22 June 2008 - 07:48 AM.