506 replies to this topic

[Lexxi Aileron]

Perhaps, although that's a fallacious line of argument in and of itself.

I suppose my general philosophy has evolved from "take advantage of semantics" to "weigh all potential references as actual ones" and to base my theories on where most of these potential references lie.

In the example you cited about the Cobble Kingdom, I consider the four Knights and the six sages spoken of in PH to be references to FSA and OoT, respectively. The fact that the Cobble tribe is the only known civilization in the Zelda-verse to have pyramids and that the Zuna in FSA simultaneously claim themselves as being descended from a pyramid-building civilization just seems to click nicely in my opinion. The idea that survivors of great catastrophes go on to develop advanced civilizations isn't too far-fetched either (mythological Rome, anyone?).

I guess you could consider these too vague or undeveloped to be considered references, but I don't think the use of the sages' names in OoT is really any more developed yet the writers seem to take for granted that they were references to AoL and that those names become the names of towns later.

[FDL]

I'm not denying they're references to other games, I'm denying that they mean anything in this instance. The names of the people in the Cobble Kingdom are based on the carpenter's names, but I doubt they're supposed to be related to them. I think such references are at times intentional, but I think in games like LA and PH they are sometimes used only in the Easter Egg/parody sense than anything else. But I'm a little unsure of what criteria exactly is needed to differentiate between references, I haven't thought about it too much, so don't hold me to that. I'd need to think a bit more about that before I judge one way or the other.

Edited by FDL, 06 October 2008 - 07:00 PM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Well, typically when I use the word "reference," I mean a plot-sensitive one. Other things I call "homages." Not that it matters, it just helps differentiate in discussion.

Anyway, in lieu of any consistent criteria for judging which homages mean anything-- as it would seem, judging them based on how in your face they are doesn't seem to work (sages' names, again)-- I like to think they're all references. I also don't like the "but it's optional" argument (Gossip Stones?). The only time this becomes difficult is TP, but I'd personally say TP burns more bridges than it builds.

[FDL]

Eh, whatever, I'm not sure there will ever be a unanimous conclusion on what makes a "reference" and what makes an "homage". Besides that, I'm not the people you mainly argue with, so I don't know how well I'd do arguing about this stuff. I disagree about TP burning more bridges, though.

[Lexxi Aileron]

I disagree about TP burning more bridges, though.

Fair enough. For the sake of argument, I'll point out the ones I see:

1) If TP is designed to have continuity with ALttP (as the Master Sword in the pedestal would suggest), why is it the game that inevitably most drastically alters the geography of Hyrule so that it no longer resembles what we see in ALttP? That visual connection seems to be accompanied by an even more drastic visual disparity. It's an overhaul of OoT as well; personally I'd say an overhaul of Hyrule completely, with the ALttP layout being preserved for post-flood games only.

2) The Mirror of Twilight seems to have been designed as an updated version of the Dark Mirror from FSA, just as OoT was designed as an updated Imprisoning War. But in the end TP winds up destroying it, so it doesn't look as though TP connects to FSA at all but instead sends the opposite message.

3) TP seems to contain allusions to elements of the backstory of ALttP that went untouched by OoT. The conflicts over the Triforce and the introduction of a demon tribe particularly seem to be placing the pre-IW conflicts before Ganondorf's invasion of Hyrule/the Sacred Realm in OoT. However, in the end, TP does not follow these periods up with anything that resembles the Imprisoning War of ALttP. While the allusions could still be valid as descriptions of pre-OoT history and seem to indicate that the developers still want the events of ALttP's manual to happen at the time of OoT, the Child timeline seems to be incompatible with the IW.

Again, these are just my observations. I understand most of the community here disagrees.

[FDL]

1. Gameplay. I don't really see any big differences anyway, and Hyrule Castle's layout and the Master Sword's location in the forest seem like clear intent to connect OoT and ALttP.
2. Ugh, I'm not getting into a Dark Mirror argument.
3. I'd make the assertion that the Imprisoning War not taking place at that time doesn't change the intent behind referencing those events in the first place. And the intent behind destroying Hyrule in the other timeline seems to me to be so they can have a timeline for non-Hyrule games.

[NM87]

Lex-

We have discussed things in the past, and I am notorious for giving off the wrong vibes over the internet. Don't take anything I say as "singling you out" or "knocking your theory". Truthfully, I think your theory is among the best - original, different and it makes sense regardless of what anyone tells you.

I think you get a lot of flak because you manage to make sense of something that would otherwise make...no sense. So when someone is arguing with you, in the back of their minds they get fired up thinking "how the hell is he doing this".

Anyway, that?s what I think.

3) TP seems to contain allusions to elements of the backstory of ALttP that went untouched by OoT. The conflicts over the Triforce and the introduction of a demon tribe particularly seem to be placing the pre-IW conflicts before Ganondorf's invasion of Hyrule/the Sacred Realm in OoT. However, in the end, TP does not follow these periods up with anything that resembles the Imprisoning War of ALttP. While the allusions could still be valid as descriptions of pre-OoT history and seem to indicate that the developers still want the events of ALttP's manual to happen at the time of OoT, the Child timeline seems to be incompatible with the IW.

For example. I like to put thousands of years between games that have gaps. So for me, if ALTTP were to come after TP, it would be thousands of years.

Edited by NM87, 06 October 2008 - 09:29 PM.

[Raien]

Two days ago, my housemate told me in no uncertain terms that the common cranefly has the most deadly venom in the world. It took me only an instant to call bullshit on this because, a) craneflies don't sting, b) no reference in education, c) no cases of death, d) no use of the venom in weapons, e) Britain has the most docile animals in the world. When I pointed these things out to him, he still believed it to be true. He considered the absence of a stinger to be the proverbial "God's little joke". I then took a look on wikipedia, and it turned out my housemate had fallen victim to an urban myth based on an association with the "daddy-long-legs" spider (which has relatively weak venom itself).

I got really frustrated at my housemate's willingness to believe in such an obvious lie because I expected him to put the claim into the same context that I had. I didn't need the proof of wikipedia because I could use my experience to determine it was wrong. And I realise now that it's because of this same frustration that I keep bringing back Lex's "sealed away from the world" argument. When Lex first raised it, I was literally stunned that Lex couldn't place the quote into the context that I had established at that time.

The thing is that what we think of as common sense depends upon experience and using that experience to ask the right questions in future situations. I admit that I didn't have much experience when I was first timeline debating, and I really shouldn't expect Lex to consider everything that I do because obviously his experience will be different from mine. We can't avoid debating on the grounds of experience and common sense, but experience and common sense are never the same for every person.

So I'll try not to refer to Lex's past failings in future discussion, but I still have one criticism that I want Lex to consider. All the evidence in the Zelda scripts and translations do not replace the experience and common sense of other theorists. We could not learn about Zant's role as Onmyoji from the evidence in Twilight Princess alone. I know you, Lex, like to "weigh different pieces of evidence", but you need to start holding other theorists' experience to that same philosophy. You assume other people are wrong because you only account for your experience, not theirs. Personally, I think I would have held onto some very silly beliefs if I hadn't taken other people's opinions into account.

Edited by Raian, 07 October 2008 - 08:32 AM.

[FDL]

Well said.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Gameplay.

Gameplay doesn't benefit from the overworld looking totally different. It does benefit from it being larger, and being larger makes it different enough, IMO. But this gets down to a "what changes/similarities matter" argument, which no one can win.

As for big differences:

Death Mountain and Zora's Domain have swapped; the Lost Woods is not anywhere near the northwest (where I would argue it should be if it's the woods in ALttP) and has moved effectively to the opposite side of the map from Death Mountain; Lake Hylia is now due west of Hyrule Castle instead of being placed more to the southeast where it is in ALttP.

The only effort to connect TP to ALttP that I can see is the Sacred Grove, but then again most of the other geographical placements differ too much for my comfort. You cite Hyrule Castle, but TWW's castle more closely resembles ALttP's than TP's (what with the red carpet and all).

Anyway, it's pointless to get into a debate from here; I just wanted to point things out that I sort of lumped together in my last post and didn't really explain.

I'd make the assertion that the Imprisoning War not taking place at that time doesn't change the intent behind referencing those events in the first place.

And here we run into the "what was the intent for referencing those events in the first place" dilemma.

And the intent behind destroying Hyrule in the other timeline seems to me to be so they can have a timeline for non-Hyrule games.

I have begun to think that the intent was to set up for the "time when a new king will come" in AoL, personally. There also seems to be "new lands" settled in AoL, which is of course implied in TWW. I guess we differ here.

Again, no intent for a debate here, just expressing valid contentions. I see your position and understand it.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 07 October 2008 - 11:01 AM.

[FDL]

Gameplay.

Gameplay doesn't benefit from the overworld looking totally different. It does benefit from it being larger, and being larger makes it different enough, IMO. But this gets down to a "what changes/similarities matter" argument, which no one can win.

As for big differences:

Death Mountain and Zora's Domain have swapped; the Lost Woods is not anywhere near the northwest (where I would argue it should be if it's the woods in ALttP) and has moved effectively to the opposite side of the map from Death Mountain; Lake Hylia is now due west of Hyrule Castle instead of being placed more to the southeast where it is in ALttP.

The only effort to connect TP to ALttP that I can see is the Sacred Grove, but then again most of the other geographical placements differ too much for my comfort. You cite Hyrule Castle, but TWW's castle more closely resembles ALttP's than TP's (what with the red carpet and all).

Anyway, it's pointless to get into a debate from here; I just wanted to point things out that I sort of lumped together in my last post and didn't really explain.

No need for a debate, but I would like to respond to this part and explain what I mean by "gameplay". Think about how the game progresses. Think about why gameplay-wise these landmarks are where they are. I think you'll find that, as in most games, the point behind changing up the map of Hyrule is so it fits in with the progression of the game. ALttP starts from the middle of Hyrule and allows you to go anywhere you want. TP starts from the far south and has you go upward for each dungeon. That alone would cause them to make the map different. The Sacred Grove was not placed in the northwest because they wanted it to be in Faron. Not because of story reasons, but because of gameplay ones. My guess is that they A. Wanted it to be in a remote region in Hyrule and B. Didn't want to make a second forest area just for the Master Sword.

Similar concerns are the most likely reasons for the other changes in geography, and I can honestly say I think you're placing too much importance in geography only when it serves you if you believe that TP is the main offender when it comes to that kind of thing. I could just as easily list off many geographical reasons why TWW doesn't lead into ALttP, more glaring ones in fact. The main one of course being that TWW Hyrule is covered in water. Hell, even the original OoT-ALttP placement, or the LoZ-AoL-ALttP order that is highly touted by you does not work if you look for geographical differences on the scale of the ones in TP when compared to OoT and ALttP. Again, I'm not trying to debate. I'm just unsure what's so different in TP that makes you believe it can't be a prequel to ALttP/AoL/LoZ when TWW can and is in your theory.

Edited by FDL, 07 October 2008 - 12:19 PM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

I'm just unsure what's so different in TP that makes you believe it can't be a prequel to ALttP/AoL/LoZ when TWW can and is in your theory.

I'll put it this way.

LoZ introduced a land called Hyrule, bordered to the north by Death Mountain and the mysterious waterfall where you get the level 2 sword.
AoL introduced new lands to the north that were also part of Hyrule and appear to be the location of the majority of its settlements.
ALttP's kingdom was situated in the region seen in LoZ, with Death Mountain and the waterfall, now the Zora's Waterfall, to the north.
OoT's kingdom was a 3D realization of ALttP's kingdom at the time.

TWW threw a monkey wrench in the works by flooding Hyrule. It also introduced the idea of a split timeline. LoZ/AoL and/or ALttP Hyrule could be considered as coming after TWW or on the other prong of the timeline. TWW didn't provide any real answers besides vague references to the islands being brought together. Since the islands are former mountains from Hyrule, then a land created in this fashion would still have the two northern landmarks--Death Mountain and Zora's waterfall.

FSA and TMC both introduced a Hyrule with a fiery mountain and a waterfall to the north. TMC calls this mountain "Mount Crenel," but in most respects it is identical to the ALttP mountain with its twin peaks. In TMC it is said that the Gorons used to dwell on this mountain, but later took to living in caves. In FSA the Gorons live on Death Mountain once again. The waterfall is not given the name "Zora's waterfall", but is still referred to as the source of Hyrule's water and thus can be considered as such. This by itself doesn't indicate anything in particular--but another landmark is presented in a somewhat different light. Lake Hylia, instead of being to the south as in OoT and ALttP, is very close to the foot of the northern waterfall in both TMC and FSA. This seems rather nonsensical without some drastic natural cause--such as a flood.

I would say the same for LoZ/AoL's Hyrule; the fragmentation of the land into islands, the movement of the kingdom's centre northward, and the Triforce-bearer of AoL's wishes for a light of hope for Hyrule, a new king, all seem to imply some natural disaster. The flood of TWW fits this bill. TWW even ends with a king gaining the Triforce and wishing quite literally for a light of hope.

So that's that.

[FDL]

Well I disagree with some of your reasoning behind that but you've clearly given it a lot of thought.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Yeah, I've never actually gotten all that down in words before either XD ^^;

Frankly ideally I'd put ALttP on the Child timeline, but in my opinion doing so is nigh impossible given FSA (the mirror) and the Imprisoning War. In my opinion the Adult timeline has always offered more for these. The flood is inconvenient, but if it's anything like the flood myths it's based on, not a permanent inconvenience. Usually this comes in the form of a supernatural force electing to resolve it (in this case the Deku Tree). The geography observations are just supplementary, but I think helpful in that they're easier to trace.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 07 October 2008 - 10:13 PM.

[NM87]

Frankly ideally I'd put ALttP on the Child timeline, but in my opinion doing so is nigh impossible given FSA (the mirror) and the Imprisoning War.

Only if you assume that FSA comes before ALTTP and that OOT is the IW.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Only if you assume that FSA comes before ALTTP and that OOT is the IW.

I think both of these have more and stronger evidence than for TP being before ALttP.

[MikePetersSucks]

I still don't see any reason to assume the Dark Mirror and the Twilight Mirror are the same, even if they are timeline dopplegangers. It's not like they're/it are the only magic mirrors in Hyrule. If anything, the Dark Mirror was intended to be based off the Magic Mirror from LTTP, like the Moon Pearls were.

[NM87]

I think both of these have more and stronger evidence than for TP being before ALttP.

...and I think otherwise. What to do, what to do, what to do...

Scenario One: During Child Timeline Ganondorf enters SR and touches Triforce, only receives ToP, wages war, subdued, ToP keeps him alive.
Scenario Two: During Child Timeline Ganondorf frustrated, wages war, subdued, but gains power because of divine prank, power keeps him alive.

Which one is more supported by TP?

[Lexxi Aileron]

Neither. TP is the least self-explanatory piece of fiction I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing.

If anything, the Dark Mirror was intended to be based off the Magic Mirror from LTTP, like the Moon Pearls were.

And that doesn't stop TP's Mirror from being based on the FSA one.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 08 October 2008 - 03:15 PM.

[wring]

I think the biggest problem with Twilight Princess is that it kills off Ganondorf, and it doesn't explain how the Dark World ended up in the Child Timeline. ven if the Sacred Realm had stayed the same in both timelines, then the Dark World would've turned back to normal when Ganondorf died. while on the other Timeline, Hyrule is flooded, and Ganondorf STILL dies.

[NM87]

"If you had to choose.

If you were forced to make a choice.
If there was no other..."

[FDL]

Yeah, I've never actually gotten all that down in words before either XD ^^;

Frankly ideally I'd put ALttP on the Child timeline, but in my opinion doing so is nigh impossible given FSA (the mirror) and the Imprisoning War. In my opinion the Adult timeline has always offered more for these. The flood is inconvenient, but if it's anything like the flood myths it's based on, not a permanent inconvenience. Usually this comes in the form of a supernatural force electing to resolve it (in this case the Deku Tree). The geography observations are just supplementary, but I think helpful in that they're easier to trace.

Personally I think that ALttP is the game that has the least chance of being on the AT.

I still don't see any reason to assume the Dark Mirror and the Twilight Mirror are the same, even if they are timeline dopplegangers. It's not like they're/it are the only magic mirrors in Hyrule. If anything, the Dark Mirror was intended to be based off the Magic Mirror from LTTP, like the Moon Pearls were.

I really don't get it either.

...and I think otherwise. What to do, what to do, what to do...

Scenario One: During Child Timeline Ganondorf enters SR and touches Triforce, only receives ToP, wages war, subdued, ToP keeps him alive.
Scenario Two: During Child Timeline Ganondorf frustrated, wages war, subdued, but gains power because of divine prank, power keeps him alive.

Which one is more supported by TP?

What does that have to do with what we're discussing? And honestly, neither one is more supported than the other. They both have their pros and cons, but neither one has something over the other that proves it. Though I'd say the lack of support for either actually constitutes support for Scenario One. If the Triforce/Gods were acting differently than OoT or TWW in TP we would have had more of an explanation of how it works. Again, though, I'm not sure what that has to do with TP being before ALttP.

Edited by FDL, 08 October 2008 - 04:57 PM.

[NM87]

What does that have to do with what we're discussing? And honestly, neither one is more supported than the other. They both have their pros and cons, but neither one has something over the other that proves it. Though I'd say the lack of support for either actually constitutes support for Scenario One. If the Triforce/Gods were acting differently than OoT or TWW in TP we would have had more of an explanation of how it works. Again, though, I'm not sure what that has to do with TP being before ALttP.

Actually, Scenario Two would be the more likely, since neither being supported well, the second option is explicitly what is told in TP. Scenario One is adding additional context. This is important for ALTTP coming after TP, as the Triforce isn?t disturbed, as Scenario Two allows.

[FDL]

We've discussed thousands of times that taking "divine prank" to mean all of those things is a bad road to go down. Not only does divine prank not automatically imply all of those other things in "Divine Prank literal" theories happened, but it also does not explain any of the many new things that would require explaining. If TP introduced something new I should think it would explain it thoroughly, as most Zelda games do when a new concept is introduced. Indeed, it is explained throughly who the Twili are and how they got to where they were.

As for the Triforce not being disturbed, I'd say that doesn't really matter to a huge, make-or-break degree. The two main reasons for this being: A. There more or less has to be another game between TP and ALttP anyway and B. The original ALttP lead-in, OoT, ended the exact same way. With the Triforce divided three ways. Meaning that was probably never that important to the developers.

Edited by FDL, 08 October 2008 - 05:22 PM.

[NM87]

Oh, I'm not advocating discussing "Divine Prank", as it really doesn't matter how he receives that power. I just used the term because its one everybody knows. I am not relating TP to other Zelda games and then basing the way we interpret TP according to those games. Triforce mechanics are confusing, so I don?t put much faith in a definite ?system?. So whether or not TP introduces something new in terms of Triforce mechanics, doesn?t concern me, as I feel they are unique to their respective games.

As for a game between ALTTP and TP, I don?t see the need. Nothing really happens in TP that would affect the continuity. You do bring up a good second point about the Triforce being split both ways, but I think you know what I would say to that.

?

(The ?Triforce? not being in TP)

[FDL]

Oh, I'm not advocating discussing "Divine Prank", as it really doesn't matter how he receives that power. I just used the term because its one everybody knows. I am not relating TP to other Zelda games and then basing the way we interpret TP according to those games. Triforce mechanics are confusing, so I don?t put much faith in a definite ?system?. So whether or not TP introduces something new in terms of Triforce mechanics, doesn?t concern me, as I feel they are unique to their respective games.

TP doesn't explain it's "system" enough to be a new system though. When OoT introduced/made more prominent the idea of the Triforce splitting up when it is touched by an unbalanced person it explained it. Any of the theories involving Ganondorf gaining the Triforce through divine prank does require new explanations that are not given by the games. This is even more true of a new power that looks and acts like the Triforce. And I might add that the idea that it's not the Triforce is complete fanfiction. It's a reasonable theory, I guess, but it is certainly not said in the game.

As for a game between ALTTP and TP, I don?t see the need. Nothing really happens in TP that would affect the continuity. You do bring up a good second point about the Triforce being split both ways, but I think you know what I would say to that.

?

(The ?Triforce? not being in TP)

That's a circular argument, though.

[NM87]

TP doesn't explain it's "system" enough to be a new system though.

I am not saying it is a new system. There are many Triforce mechanics spread across the series and I don't find it unlikely that the developers will stop making new ones. Triforce splitting in OOT, a crest appearing on the hero in ALTTP of the bloodline, a crest appearing on AOL Links hand because he comes of age, whatever happened in OOX, Ganondorf keeping the symbol of the crest on his hand even though he lost his piece in WW...

That's a circular argument, though.

At least I'm not being square. Psshh. *Ahem* I still don't see where this circular aspect is coming from.

Edited by NM87, 08 October 2008 - 06:22 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Alright, time to come out of the lurker cave.

I am not relating TP to other Zelda games and then basing the way we interpret TP according to those games.

You make that sound like it's a bad thing to do.

I am not saying it is a new system. There are many Triforce mechanics spread across the series and I don't find it unlikely that the developers will stop making new ones. Triforce splitting in OOT, a crest appearing on the hero in ALTTP of the bloodline, a crest appearing on AOL Links hand because he comes of age, whatever happened in OOX, Ganondorf keeping the symbol of the crest on his hand even though he lost his piece in WW...

No game has told us all the mechanics, each just has the Triforce react in a new way suitable to the game. I don't think that that makes every game's mechanics apply only to that game. I would rather assume that Nintendo would expect us (the fans) to be able to use knowledge of what the games have said to build a "system" for how it works.

Actually, Scenario Two would be the more likely, since neither being supported well, the second option is explicitly what is told in TP. Scenario One is adding additional context. This is important for ALTTP coming after TP, as the Triforce isn?t disturbed, as Scenario Two allows.

Actually, the two are essentially the same thing.

Scenario One: During Child Timeline Ganondorf enters SR and touches Triforce, only receives ToP, wages war, subdued, ToP keeps him alive.
Scenario Two: During Child Timeline Ganondorf frustrated, gains Power of the Gods by unknown means, wages war, subdued, Power of the Gods keeps him alive.

Bear in mind that I never, for all the times I watch the execution scene, ever get the impression that Ganondorf somehow gains the Power of the Gods during that scene. In fact, the impression I get watching it is that he had it before.

[FDL]

TP doesn't explain it's "system" enough to be a new system though.

I am not saying it is a new system. There are many Triforce mechanics spread across the series and I don't find it unlikely that the developers will stop making new ones. Triforce splitting in OOT, a crest appearing on the hero in ALTTP of the bloodline, a crest appearing on AOL Links hand because he comes of age, whatever happened in OOX, Ganondorf keeping the symbol of the crest on his hand even though he lost his piece in WW...

There was no crest in ALttP and the example from TWW was probably a graphical error.

At least I'm not being square. Psshh. *Ahem* I still don't see where this circular aspect is coming from.

Because you basically said "The Triforce not being in TP is one reason why the Triforce isn't in TP".

EDIT: Oh, yay! CID's back! I agree 100%.

Edited by FDL, 08 October 2008 - 06:50 PM.

[NM87]

You make that sound like it's a bad thing to do.

I'd advise against it. Seeing as Nintendo wants to give more attention to individual stories as opposed to adapting it to the timeline.

No game has told us all the mechanics, each just has the Triforce react in a new way suitable to the game. I don't think that that makes every game's mechanics apply only to that game. I would rather assume that Nintendo would expect us (the fans) to be able to use knowledge of what the games have said to build a "system" for how it works.

So, make up new mechanics for each game, but somehow they are all connected in a big complicated plan. Gee, here I was thinking Nintendo wanted to make things more understandable and focus on each games unique story rather than make it fit into the timeline.

Actually, the two are essentially the same thing.

Scenario One: During Child Timeline Ganondorf enters SR and touches Triforce, only receives ToP, wages war, subdued, ToP keeps him alive.
Scenario Two: During Child Timeline Ganondorf frustrated, gains Power of the Gods by unknown means, wages war, subdued, Power of the Gods keeps him alive.

No they are not, you added something.

Bear in mind that I never, for all the times I watch the execution scene, ever get the impression that Ganondorf somehow gains the Power of the Gods during that scene. In fact, the impression I get watching it is that he had it before.

It goes something like this. As the sages tell the story, they explain how Ganondorf was blind in all his fury and was brought to justice. They continue to say he was punished for his actions and executed. While you read the text, the scene displays Ganondorf being executed. The text continues about the divine prank, whilst Ganondorf survives the execution. Its as if the visuals and the text were the story as it happened, not that the sages really meant for you to think Ganondorf had this power all along and they underestimated him. They underestimated their ability to seal Ganondorf away in the Twilight Realm, thinking he would be trapped there forever. So it would be:

Child portion of OOT.
Ganondorf can not enter the SR.
Ganondorf wages war on Hyrule.
Ganondorf is subdued.
Ganondorf is executed.
Ganondorf gains the chosen power.
Ganondorf survives.
Sages underestimate their ability to contain Ganondorf in TR.
Ganondorf uses Zant to escape.
Link begins his quest.
Link confronts Ganondorf & Zant.
Ganondorf is killed.
Ganondorf loses chosen power.
Crest disappears from Ganondorf?s hand - no sign of a Triforce.

That's pretty much all TP tells us. You are the one adding more context to whats already there.

Edited by NM87, 08 October 2008 - 10:14 PM.