75 replies to this topic

[CID Farwin]

Talks about the ancestors of Link and Zelda, which could be the knights and sages- the given ancestors of Link and Zelda.
Or, conversely, talks about the "time when Hyrule was one kingdom," later known as OoT.

Depends if you assume the box is referring to the backdrop of the game or the beginning. It's rather vague.

No it's not; You just choose to ignore the obvious implications of everything. To paraphrase what I said the last time you argued this: the back of the game box is the first thing you read about the game inside. Odds are, when someone reads the box they have no idea that any ancestors are mentioned within ALttP itself.

[Showsni]

If the Creators/the games/and logic all say Ocarina of Time is the Imprisoning War, why do we need another one, or another Ganondorf? Besides, Ganondorf dies off all the time. You might as well say LOZ/AoL have a different Ganon then ALttP and Oracles has a different Ganon then both of them, cus he dies at the end of each game.

The creators said OoT was based on the IW a long time ago, and haven't for the past, what ten years? Whilst releasing more evidence against it.
The games say that OoT is not the IW (on account of all the inconsistencies).
Logic says OoT is not the IW, without inconsistencies.

And why not have more Ganondorfs? Obviously OoX is a reincarnation, so it must be some past one, but ALttP, OoT and FSA all have seperate origin stories for him and thus seperate Ganondorfs.

[wring]

Did you expect the creators to keep on saying OoT is the IW over and over again? All they have to do is say it once. There is no evidence against it, just some people's stupid timeline theories.

[Arturo]

Have you actually read the ALttP manual? Have you ever played TWW? Have you ever played TP?

It doesn't look like that at all.

I used to believe that OoT is the Seal War, and I still believe it in a non-timelineish way. But if there's a timeline, either OoT is not the Seal War or you have to twist terribly its story (as Lex does).

[Raien]

Did you expect the creators to keep on saying OoT is the IW over and over again? All they have to do is say it once.

So let me get this straight. If a dictator says that the death penalty has been abolished, but then continues to publically execute people for a further ten years, are we supposed to believe the death penalty has been abolished because the dictator said so ten years ago?

There is no evidence against it, just some people's stupid timeline theories.

*cough*

GANON WAS KILLED IN THE WIND WAKER AND TWILIGHT PRINCESS!

Edited by Raian, 17 September 2008 - 06:32 PM.

[CID Farwin]

I used to believe that OoT is the Seal War, and I still believe it in a non-timelineish way. But if there's a timeline, either OoT is not the Seal War or you have to twist terribly its story (as Lex does).

Exactly.

TWW and TP make it impossible for OoT to be the IW in an OoT-centric Timeline. Any of these other 'inconsistencies' between OoT and the ALttP backstory I dismiss just as easily as I did 10 years ago, because when we're talkin' ALttP, OoT is the IW. But no, timeline-wise it looks impossible for OoT to be the IW.

Edited by CID Farwin, 17 September 2008 - 07:48 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

He still has the Triforce of Power in LoZ...

It says that he invaded the Royal Family's castle and stole it, and kidnapped Zelda because she scattered the ToW before he could seize that too. There's an interim where Ganon does not have the Triforce of Power, probably not during that incarnation's entire lifetime.

[Lexxi Aileron]

It says that he invaded the Royal Family's castle and stole it, and kidnapped Zelda because she scattered the ToW before he could seize that too. There's an interim where Ganon does not have the Triforce of Power, probably not during that incarnation's entire lifetime.

"One day, the Great Demon King Ganon, who planned to rule the world with darkness and fear, led an evil army corps and invaded the kingdom and snatched the Triforce of Power."

To paraphrase what I said the last time you argued this: the back of the game box is the first thing you read about the game inside. Odds are, when someone reads the box they have no idea that any ancestors are mentioned within ALttP itself.

So? It still makes more sense for the box to refer to the current game instead of a previous game that the person reading the box might never have even heard of.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 18 September 2008 - 10:01 AM.

[Alastair]

So? It still makes more sense for the box to refer to the current game instead of a previous game that the person reading the box might never have even heard of.

The box is something intended to be read before someone buys the game, let alone starts playing it. The chance of someone not being aware of the previous Zelda titles is negligable - more so at the time of aLttP's release as LoZ was reknowned for it's innovative gameplay. It makes no sense at all for the box to refer to information you gain whilst playing the game.

Personally I question the validity of boxes as canon. Essentially they are marketing tools to make someone buy the game, and I am sceptical that the game's script writer has any direct influence over their content. However, if you consider them to be canon then you cannot dismiss the information they contain with wild conjecture. Possible and plausable are not the same thing.

[Raien]

So? It still makes more sense for the box to refer to the current game instead of a previous game that the person reading the box might never have even heard of.

Right, because Nintendo never sells their games on past successes.[/sarcasm]

[Lexxi Aileron]

Right, because Nintendo never sells their games on past successes.[/sarcasm]

It would have been easy to add "from the Legend of Zelda" to the box, if that's what they meant.

It makes no sense at all for the box to refer to information you gain whilst playing the game.

You mean, like in LA, OoT, MM, and every other game?

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 18 September 2008 - 11:40 AM.

[Arturo]

I can't believe you are saying what I think you are saying. Really, I can't! So, you are comparing those boxes, that CAN BE UNDERSTOOD correctly and perfectly by anyone who HASN'T PLAYED that game to the box of a game that would be GROSSLY misinterpreted by the one who hasn't read it, that is, assuming you were right. Can you just realize the sheer idiocy of your statement?

[Raien]

It would have been easy to add "from the Legend of Zelda" to the box, if that's what they meant.

The title wasn't enough to indicate what this new game relates to?

Edited by Raian, 18 September 2008 - 11:58 AM.

[Showsni]

The preceding sentence says "Venture back to Hyrule." Therefore, it's clearly aimed at those who have played Zelda games before.

[MikePetersSucks]

"One day, the Great Demon King Ganon, who planned to rule the world with darkness and fear, led an evil army corps and invaded the kingdom and snatched the Triforce of Power."

Right. The KINGDOM. Not the Sacred Realm or anything.

[Lexxi Aileron]

The title wasn't enough to indicate what this new game relates to?

"Triforce of the Gods"? No.
"A Link to the Past"? Clearly refers to the characters in-game being "linked" to the Imprisoning War.

Right. The KINGDOM. Not the Sacred Realm or anything.

That's what TWW said, too, you know.

I can't believe you are saying what I think you are saying. Really, I can't!

You can't believe that the game box, when talking about the events of the game inside the box, would refer to the characters involved with the events of the game inside the box?

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 18 September 2008 - 03:42 PM.

[jacensolo06]

You can't believe that the game box, when talking about the events of the game inside the box, would refer to the characters involved with the events of the game inside the box?

I have to agree with Arturo. The game box is meant for people who have no knowledge of the events of the game inside the box. So when it refers back to something, it's meant to be something that those reading it would know about. Namely, the previous games.

[CID Farwin]

You can't believe that the game box, when talking about the events of the game inside the box, would refer to the characters involved with the events of the game inside the box?

Refer to characters involved in the events of the game, not its backstory.

Nice strawman, by the way.

Edited by CID Farwin, 18 September 2008 - 04:16 PM.

[Raien]

"Triforce of the Gods"? No.
"A Link to the Past"? Clearly refers to the characters in-game being "linked" to the Imprisoning War.

How about "The Legend of Zelda"? You don't think that name would establish a relationship with the incredibly popular NES title called "The Legend of Zelda"?

You can't believe that the game box, when talking about the events of the game inside the box, would refer to the characters involved with the events of the game inside the box?

I can't believe that the back of the box, which exists to address people who haven't bought the game, would address people who have bought and played the game. Since players who haven't bought the game cannot be expected to know of the existence of the Sages or the Knights of Hyrule, then the developers could not have meant "ancestors" to reference their existence as a selling point.

Edited by Raian, 18 September 2008 - 05:19 PM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

The game box is meant for people who have no knowledge of the events of the game inside the box. So when it refers back to something, it's meant to be something that those reading it would know about. Namely, the previous games.

All of the other game boxes refer to the events of the game inside the box (see the three links I posted for some examples).
None of them refer to previous games without mentioning those games by name (with the possible exception of Four Swords Adventures, although Four Swords is its immediate backstory).

How about "The Legend of Zelda"?

It's part of the series bearing that name?

I can't believe that the back of the box, which exists to address people who haven't bought the game, would address people who have bought and played the game.

Read the LA, OoT, MM boxes. All of them reference the in-game events of the game in the same fashion.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 18 September 2008 - 05:14 PM.

[Showsni]

"Venture back to Hyrule - back to Hyrule, implying you have been there before. This is aimed at people who have played LoZ and AoL. and an age of magic and heroes. The predecessors of Link and Zelda face monsters on the march when a menacing magician - this gives us the timeframe - when are the monsters marching? When the magician tries to take over; that is, Agahnim. The monsters are facing people contemporary with ALttP. takes over the kingdom."

[Raien]

A new player picks up the box and sees the title "The Legend of Zelda". Said player recognises that title as a popular adventure game featuring the now-popular characters Link and Zelda. The player reads the back of the box which begins by saying "Venture back to Hyrule", which tells us that the box assumes the player has played or witnessed the events in the first Legend of Zelda game. The box continues by saying that the predecessors of Link and Zelda (recognised from the first game) fight monsters brought about by an evil magician. The player doesn't know that these new characters are also called Link and Zelda, and the tone which which the magician is introduced strongly implies it to be a new villain appearing in the game. So with that understood, what conclusions can the player come to other than that the predecessors are actually the Link and Zelda who appear in the game?

But no matter, Showsni has already proven that the predecessors are Link and Zelda simply because the magician is clearly Agahnim.

Edited by Raian, 18 September 2008 - 05:57 PM.

[jacensolo06]

All of the other game boxes refer to the events of the game inside the box (see the three links I posted for some examples).

As CID Farwin said, those other boxes refer to events in the actual game not its backstory.

None of them refer to previous games without mentioning those games by name (with the possible exception of Four Swords Adventures, although Four Swords is its immediate backstory).

Why would it need to refer to the game by name when there were only two other games in the series. Two games that featured the same Link. If someone who had only played LoZ and AoL read that box, the Link they would know of would be the one from LoZ and AoL.

[CID Farwin]

It's part of the series bearing that name?

Then why not call it "Zelda 3: Triforce of the Gods/A Link to the Past?" It's the game that started the tradition of every Zelda game bearing the title "The Legend of Zelda."

[MikePetersSucks]

That's what TWW said, too, you know.

Yea...because Ganondorf broke out of the Sacred Realm with the Triforce of Power already, and attacked Hyrule.

[wring]

I actually think the three timeline theory makes the most sense.

Adult Timeline
OoT-WW/PH
Child TImeline
OoT/MM-TP
Original Timeline
MC-FS/FSA-(IW)-LttP/LA-OoX-LoZ/AoL

OoT is the start of a new timeline, while Four Sword series continues the old timeline. That explains why Faries and Zoras looks so different, and why TP and WW don't really fit into A Link to the Past.

[Raien]

I want to dispute the connection between FSA and ALTTP. Ganon was sealed in the Four Sword at the end of FSA, which was then placed and sealed in the Four Sword Sanctuary. Through no established explanation, we are supposed to believe that Ganon broke free from his seal and then jumped into the Sacred Realm (something he was never able to do unsealed), taking the Four Sword with him.

The director of Flagship studios stated in an interview that when they remade ALttP for Game Boy Advance, and thus included the Palace of the Four Sword, they were making no intended timeline connections whatsoever. The new dungeon was simply bonus gameplay for people who completed the main quests for ALttP and FS. The developers of FSA (who are not Flagship studios) used ALttP's graphics and iconography, but they never established a plausible way to "canonise" the Palace of the Four Sword because they never brought Ganon or the Four Sword into contact with the Sacred Realm.

In short, people connect FSA to ALttP by comparing two events; one of which, as far as the evidence suggests, is not canon. There is no plausible explanation for one event to lead into the other, but it is assumed that an explanation must exist because it is assumed that the two events are connected.

Edited by Raian, 22 September 2008 - 09:47 AM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

The director of Flagship studios stated in an interview that when they remade ALttP for Game Boy Advance, and thus included the Palace of the Four Sword, they were making no intended timeline connections whatsoever. The new dungeon was simply bonus gameplay for people who completed the main quests for ALttP and FS. The developers of FSA (who are not Flagship studios) used ALttP's graphics and iconography, but they never established a plausible way to "canonise" the Palace of the Four Sword because they never brought Ganon or the Four Sword into contact with the Sacred Realm.

In short, people connect FSA to ALttP by comparing two events; one of which, as far as the evidence suggests, is not canon. There is no plausible explanation for one event to lead into the other, but it is assumed that an explanation must exist because it is assumed that the two events are connected.

1) Flagship is not EAD, the makers of FSA.
2) The makers of FSA show the maidens sealing the Four Sword. You and MPS have said that there's no way such a seal could have been related to the Sacred Realm, even though it's identical to at least two depictions of Sacred Realm seals, and possibly three. Citing "it's not literal" for the two known depictions is a very weak argument.
3) Furthermore, the makers of FSA refer back to ALttP Palace of the Four Sword in another way by featuring Link Doppelgangers, the final bosses of the Palace of the Four Sword. This is yet another throwback to ALttP, specifically ALttP's Palace of the Four Sword, which was previously uncanon.
4) Story writers for the games have historically said that they throw in these "pseudo-secrets" for players to find, and that they are chronology-sensitive (see Toru Osawa).
5) After all this, I think that it's clear that FSA used much of its source material as ALttP, including the Palace of the Four Sword. The only reason to "dispute the connection" is out of...wait, that same thing I'm always accused of doing about ignoring more recent developer intent?

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 22 September 2008 - 10:43 AM.

[Impossible]

The difference being that you believe retcons should be perceived in places where the games themselves make no indication that anything needs to have changed.

[Lexxi Aileron]

The difference being that you believe retcons should be perceived in places where the games themselves make no indication that anything needs to have changed.

Why would a story give an indication that it needs to be changed? Not all retcons are necessary.