325 replies to this topic

[Impossible]

So your goal is to twist the facts to ensure that they remain consistent with your own personal desires for the timeline? That's what you said, right?

Pretty much all the important text from TWW was translated on this board, maybe you should read through it.

[MikePetersSucks]

What the creator intended has no bearing on my timeline. Therefore, everything is a dream except the fifth dungeon of TWW. All else is non-canon.

[Chaltab]

So your goal is to twist the facts to ensure that they remain consistent with your own personal desires for the timeline? That's what you said, right?

Absolutely not. Working with the evidence I was aware of, a single timeline was still plausible. In light of the corrected translation, note that the timeline in my signature now has TWW parallel to TP.

How do you expect a timeline discussion to be proactive to your goals if you debate on a forum where everyone else has different goals (in this case to know the writers' timeline)? You can't expect other people to work with your interpretations of the text unless you can get them to work with your goals. This is from my own experience of debating the Resident Evil timeline; you simply cannot get people to debate with different goals in mind. It doesn't work on a fundamental level.

I didn't think the goals were so incompatible. Nearly everyone refers to their own timeline theory as 'my timeline' or 'my theory' implying that they take personal satisfaction in their timeline's instead of instead of trying to match what Aonuma or Miyamoto think exactly And the very nature of Zelda's chronology makes determining a perfectly correct order impossible at this point. Or at least, if we do determine the correct order, we have no way of verifying it. The creators have contradicted each other, and the games don't make all their connections explicit. Some times, the games have contradictory evidence. We have to treat the Legend of the Fairy as irrelevant to the timeline in order to make the Adult Timeline placement of TWW make sense, for example.

If all we're trying to do is determine what one Japanese guy who has only directed four of twelve Zelda games thinks about the timeline, then timelining really becomes less fun to me.

Edited by Chaltab, 20 December 2008 - 07:44 PM.

[Raien]

Nearly everyone refers to their own timeline theory as 'my timeline' or 'my theory' implying that they take personal satisfaction in their timeline's instead of instead of trying to match what Aonuma or Miyamoto think exactly.

All stories and timelines begin with conventions of canon. When people refer to "my timeline theory", they mean "my theory of what the canon timeline is". According to Aonuma, there is an official timeline written on a Word document at HQ, which appears to transcend the individual beliefs of Miyamoto and Aonuma. It's this document that people are trying to work out.

And the very nature of Zelda's chronology makes determining a perfectly correct order impossible at this point. Or at least, if we do determine the correct order, we have no way of verifying it. The creators have contradicted each other, and the games don't make all their connections explicit. Some times, the games have contradictory evidence. We have to treat the Legend of the Fairy as irrelevant to the timeline in order to make the Adult Timeline placement of TWW make sense, for example.

The exact same can be said of the Resident Evil timeline, but that doesn't stop people from working under the same pretexts. The fact people know there is an official timeline is enough to encourage them to theorise it, regardless of whether or not the information is sufficient or consistent.

Edited by Raian, 21 December 2008 - 06:25 AM.

[Chaltab]

Nearly everyone refers to their own timeline theory as 'my timeline' or 'my theory' implying that they take personal satisfaction in their timeline's instead of instead of trying to match what Aonuma or Miyamoto think exactly.

All stories and timelines begin with conventions of canon. When people refer to "my timeline theory", they mean "my theory of what the canon timeline is". According to Aonuma, there is an official timeline written on a Word document at HQ, which appears to transcend the individual beliefs of Miyamoto and Aonuma. It's this document that people are trying to work out.

Thing is, I'm not sure this Word file really exists. I'm not sure that Aonuma wasn't joking, throwing the timeline enthusiasts for a loop. Outside of The Wind Waker, no Zelda has refered explicitly to another generation's Link. Even Twilight Princess refered to a past Link generically as 'The Hero' and not specifically the Hero of Time. On top of all that, even if the Word document exists, what are the odds of us ever knowing its contents?

And this isn't quite like Resident Evil, where we're given real world dates. We know that the first game takes place in 1998. We know Resident Evil five will take place in 2008. Zelda's chronology is more loose, and given the element of time travel, more malleable.

That's why see the timeline as a MacGuffin that we have fun chasing, theorizing about, and then having others comment on, not a matter of alignment with a hypothetical Nintendo-endorsed timeline. Which is why I don't understand why people get so hostile over it sometimes.

But that's just me. If you want to think there's really an official timeline, have at it.

Edited by Chaltab, 21 December 2008 - 04:49 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I just choose to believe the heads of Nintendo aren't malicious liars.

[Raien]

And this isn't quite like Resident Evil, where we're given real world dates. We know that the first game takes place in 1998. We know Resident Evil five will take place in 2008. Zelda's chronology is more loose, and given the element of time travel, more malleable.

The games are given dates, but there are still numerous inconsistencies, especially regarding the back story. According to one version of events, Birkin created the T-Virus in 1978. According to another version of events, Birkin stole the T-Virus in 1988. Although it's quite obvious that there's supposed to be a cover-up, it is impossible to make events match. Believe me, I've tried fucking hard to make it work. So by your logic, why should people bother to theorise the Resident Evil timeline?

[Evilsbane]

1)
---------TWW-PH
---------/
TMC-OoT
---------\
---------FS-FSA-MM-TP-ALttP-LA-(LoZ-AoL-OoX)

Basically, I think that when the timeline split and Link went back to the past, TWW says that he lost the ToC from the Adult Timeline, right? Cos you can't have one universe where there are 2 Triforce pieces and another universe with 4. So to compensate, he gets the ToC from the Child Timeline instantaneously (he has the crest on his hand so it belongs to him). This splits the Triforce, resulting in the 'Divine Prank' - Ganon has the ToP and he doesn't even know it.

The splitting of the timeline interferes with the Four Sword Seal in the CT, so Zelda, who is now friends with Link, takes him to investigate. FS occurs. Then Ganondorf, having failed to get into the Sacred Realm in the CT, steals the Trident as another way to conquer Hyrule, and FSA occurs. Ganondorf is sealed away until the TP Sages attempt to get rid of him for good, and fail since Ganondorf's ToP self-activates to protect him, alerting him to his ownership of it.

Everything else is standard.

2)I think the developers created the timeline split so that they could have the freedom to make vastly different game series (CT is traditional fantasy on land while AT is piratey on the sea). They get to have more fun, basically.

[MikePetersSucks]

1)
---------TWW-PH
---------/
TMC-OoT
---------\
---------FS-FSA-MM-TP-ALttP-LA-(LoZ-AoL-OoX)

Aside from the placement of FS-FSA, this words. Why are the last three games after LA in parentheses?

The splitting of the timeline interferes with the Four Sword Seal in the CT, so Zelda, who is now friends with Link, takes him to investigate. FS occurs. Then Ganondorf, having failed to get into the Sacred Realm in the CT, steals the Trident as another way to conquer Hyrule, and FSA occurs. Ganondorf is sealed away until the TP Sages attempt to get rid of him for good, and fail since Ganondorf's ToP self-activates to protect him, alerting him to his ownership of it.

This doesn't work. Why did splitting the timeline interfere with the Seal? Why are the Gerudo suddenly peaceful nomads? How come nobody expects a thing of Ganondorf when he already has a recent history of public villainy? Why didn't he use the Triforce of Power he received, instead of the Trident? If he was in the Four Sword, what happened to it, and why did the TP Sages decide to just pull him out of it in order to try and kill him for the lulz? What happened to his Trident? Where the hell did all of the races and temples and stuff go within a span of mere months? How come Malon doesn't recognize Link in FSA?

This placement brings up many more questions aside and answers NONE.

[Evilsbane]

Aside from the placement of FS-FSA, this words. Why are the last three games after LA in parentheses?

Because I'm open to alternate suggestions on where they go. They don't give much to work with.

This doesn't work. Why did splitting the timeline interfere with the Seal? Why are the Gerudo suddenly peaceful nomads? How come nobody expects a thing of Ganondorf when he already has a recent history of public villainy? Why didn't he use the Triforce of Power he received, instead of the Trident? If he was in the Four Sword, what happened to it, and why did the TP Sages decide to just pull him out of it in order to try and kill him for the lulz? What happened to his Trident? Where the hell did all of the races and temples and stuff go within a span of mere months? How come Malon doesn't recognize Link in FSA?

This placement brings up many more questions aside and answers NONE.

I would imagine such a major alteration of the space-time continuum would wreak havoc with magic such as the Four Sword seal. Even if you don't accept that, then I can simply do what every other theorist does and not bother to explain why the seal suddenly weakens.

The Gerudos have always been 'noble nomads', except when Ganondorf was in charge. And although Ganondorf was in charge, none of the Gerudo could forgive his trespassing in the Pyramid, and stopped following him.

People suspect Ganondorf of being a villain, sure - even his own people have disowned him and say he has become twisted. However, Link's return to the past at the end of OoT means that all of Ganondorf's major transgressions like invading Hyrule, stealing the Triforce and ruling an empire of evil for seven years have all been erased. The only things that he did in the CT until FSA were cursing the Deku Tree and sealing Dodongo's Cavern, which would hardly make people expect him to be a worse villain than Vaati.

He didn't use the ToP simply because he didn't know he had it. Link in TP didn't know he had the ToC until he was about to be killed, either - only then did it activate. And so he stole the Dark Mirror and the Trident because he thought he had failed in obtaining the Triforce and needed to find alternate sources of power to conquer Hyrule.

The Sages brought him out because execution is a far more final solution - have you ever seen a seal that could hold Ganon? Should they simply have waited for him to break free? They didn't, after all, know that he had the ToP.

If you mean in TP, then I don't know. The Sages confiscated it when they were attempting to execute him, perhaps?

I could just as easily ask how Hyrule's geography and culture changes so drastically between FS and FSA even though they're DEFINITELY one after another. Where were all the races in FS? FSA has Gorons and Gerudo (and probably Sheikah since there's a Kakariko Village), and as far as I can remember, that means that OoT and FSA are the only two games to definitely feature Gerudo. The Temples aren't visted in FS and FSA because there's no reason to do so - it's an entirely different game, where Link is trying to free Shrine Maidens, not awaken Sages.

Link met Malon in OoT at almost the same time as he met Zelda. He went back in time to before they met. I'll admit to not fully understanding this myself - how Link could be inside the Temple of Time before he opened the Door - but he only opened the Door of Time after Ganon chased Zelda out of the castle and the closing sequence shows her in the castle garden, with the two apparently meeting for the first time all over again.



Taking all of the above into account, this theory accomodates the presence of Kaepora Gaebora in FSA, the already existing friendhip between Zelda and Link in FS and it allows for the Dark Mirror and the Mirror of Twilight to be the same thing (if FSA is before TP, then the Mirror hasn't been destroyed yet).

Edited by Evilsbane, 19 January 2009 - 02:35 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Because I'm open to alternate suggestions on where they go. They don't give much to work with.

Well, LOZ-AOL go together, as they feature the same Link, and LTTP was published as their prequel, so there's that right there.

I would imagine such a major alteration of the space-time continuum would wreak havoc with magic such as the Four Sword seal. Even if you don't accept that, then I can simply do what every other theorist does and not bother to explain why the seal suddenly weakens.

I don't see why altering the space-time continuum would effect such. Maybe if it was dimensional magic, like the seal on the Sacred Realm, but this is some demon being trapped inside a sword, and so not entirely comparable. The seal probably weakened because it was OLD.

The Gerudos have always been 'noble nomads', except when Ganondorf was in charge. And although Ganondorf was in charge, none of the Gerudo could forgive his trespassing in the Pyramid, and stopped following him.

Wrong. They were known as thieves even when Ganondorf had a fairly good reputation. This is told to us by OOT.

People suspect Ganondorf of being a villain, sure - even his own people have disowned him and say he has become twisted. However, Link's return to the past at the end of OoT means that all of Ganondorf's major transgressions like invading Hyrule, stealing the Triforce and ruling an empire of evil for seven years have all been erased. The only things that he did in the CT until FSA were cursing the Deku Tree and sealing Dodongo's Cavern, which would hardly make people expect him to be a worse villain than Vaati.

Then how come the Gorons in FSA don't mention anything about it? How come the Maidens don't suspect Ganondorf, since Zelda, their leader whom they're obviously in communication with, does?

He didn't use the ToP simply because he didn't know he had it. Link in TP didn't know he had the ToC until he was about to be killed, either - only then did it activate. And so he stole the Dark Mirror and the Trident because he thought he had failed in obtaining the Triforce and needed to find alternate sources of power to conquer Hyrule.

Not exactly comparable. The most we ever see the Triforce of Courage actually do is subconsciously replenish Link's health once. Maybe.

The Sages brought him out because execution is a far more final solution - have you ever seen a seal that could hold Ganon? Should they simply have waited for him to break free? They didn't, after all, know that he had the ToP.

Why not destroy the Four Sword with him in it? Or just spit him out and kill him with it right there? Why waste time dragging him all the way there and making a new sword for the purpose of killing him when there's a sword with Evil's Bane right there?

If you mean in TP, then I don't know. The Sages confiscated it when they were attempting to execute him, perhaps?

Then why don't the Sages mention it? Why don't we learn about it? How come Ganondorf doesn't try and get it back? Why is he depicted, in his past villainy cutscene, as his OOT self on a black horse, instead of a pig monster with a Trident?

Link met Malon in OoT at almost the same time as he met Zelda. He went back in time to before they met. I'll admit to not fully understanding this myself - how Link could be inside the Temple of Time before he opened the Door - but he only opened the Door of Time after Ganon chased Zelda out of the castle and the closing sequence shows her in the castle garden, with the two apparently meeting for the first time all over again.

Link met Malon before he even met Zelda, and there's no evidence that he traveled back to before he met Zelda. Hell, most theorists think otherwise, and that he went back to the first time he lifted the Master Sword; OOT Link's Time Travel is spiritual, not physical.

Taking all of the above into account, this theory accomodates the presence of Kaepora Gaebora in FSA, the already existing friendhip between Zelda and Link in FS and it allows for the Dark Mirror and the Mirror of Twilight to be the same thing (if FSA is before TP, then the Mirror hasn't been destroyed yet).

Kaepora probably has multiple selves just like EVERYONE ELSE in Hyrule, and Link and Zelda are called "childhood friends", implying they would've known each other much longer than a few years. And don't get me started on the mirrors.

[Evilsbane]

The Gerudos have always been 'noble nomads', except when Ganondorf was in charge. And although Ganondorf was in charge, none of the Gerudo could forgive his trespassing in the Pyramid, and stopped following him.

Wrong. They were known as thieves even when Ganondorf had a fairly good reputation. This is told to us by OOT.

I don't see how that contradicts what I said about them only being ignoble while Ganon was in charge.

Then how come the Gorons in FSA don't mention anything about it? How come the Maidens don't suspect Ganondorf, since Zelda, their leader whom they're obviously in communication with, does?

Why would the Gorons start ranting about Ganondorf when Vaati is the one visibly wreaking havoc? Ganon hasn't even revealed himself as being involved at the point where Link meets the Gorons.

Not exactly comparable. The most we ever see the Triforce of Courage actually do is subconsciously replenish Link's health once. Maybe.

Exactly. Link has one of the three divine crests in many of the games, and rarely ever manages to use it. In OoT, Link is only made aware of his having the ToC when Zelda/Sheik tells him. In TP, it activates on its own to save him.

Why not destroy the Four Sword with him in it? Or just spit him out and kill him with it right there? Why waste time dragging him all the way there and making a new sword for the purpose of killing him when there's a sword with Evil's Bane right there?

Because they were standing on ceremony. They freely admitted to having been arrogant.

Then why don't the Sages mention it? Why don't we learn about it? How come Ganondorf doesn't try and get it back? Why is he depicted, in his past villainy cutscene, as his OOT self on a black horse, instead of a pig monster with a Trident?

OoT Ganon and FSA Ganon, in this theory, are the same person. So depicting one is the same as depicting another. Why didn't the Sages mention the Four Sword? Well, why didn't anyone mention where Link's sailboat went in PH? At the end of TWW, he's in the KoRL boat. In PH, it's gone. In AoL, Link doesn't have any of the weapons he had collected in LoZ. In MM, Link is never mentioned to have the ToC. Why were none of these things mentioned? Because they're different games and why would a game developer start telling the gamer about a sword that won't feature in the game?

Link met Malon in OoT at almost the same time as he met Zelda. He went back in time to before they met. I'll admit to not fully understanding this myself - how Link could be inside the Temple of Time before he opened the Door - but he only opened the Door of Time after Ganon chased Zelda out of the castle and the closing sequence shows her in the castle garden, with the two apparently meeting for the first time all over again.

Link met Malon before he even met Zelda, and there's no evidence that he traveled back to before he met Zelda. Hell, most theorists think otherwise, and that he went back to the first time he lifted the Master Sword; OOT Link's Time Travel is spiritual, not physical.

I said ALMOST the same time; Link met Malon when he was attempting to get into Hyrule Castle for the first time. And the evidence was that at the end of the game, Link returns to Zelda who is still in the Castle Garden, still looking in the window, just the same as she was when they first met. Ganon hasn't chased her out.

[MikePetersSucks]

I don't see how that contradicts what I said about them only being ignoble while Ganon was in charge.

They've apparently had that reputation for a while, as they had it for atleast a couple generations, when NPCs mentioned things like "Ever since the Thief King was born, etc."

Why would the Gorons start ranting about Ganondorf when Vaati is the one visibly wreaking havoc? Ganon hasn't even revealed himself as being involved at the point where Link meets the Gorons.

They could've atleast said "This is worse than the time Ganondorf attacked" or something to the effect. But no, no one knows who the hell he is except a couple Maidens.

OoT Ganon and FSA Ganon, in this theory, are the same person. So depicting one is the same as depicting another. Why didn't the Sages mention the Four Sword? Well, why didn't anyone mention where Link's sailboat went in PH? At the end of TWW, he's in the KoRL boat. In PH, it's gone. In AoL, Link doesn't have any of the weapons he had collected in LoZ. In MM, Link is never mentioned to have the ToC. Why were none of these things mentioned? Because they're different games and why would a game developer start telling the gamer about a sword that won't feature in the game?

You aren't seriously comparing a plot device to in-game weapons, are you? That's just utterly lazy.

I said ALMOST the same time; Link met Malon when he was attempting to get into Hyrule Castle for the first time. And the evidence was that at the end of the game, Link returns to Zelda who is still in the Castle Garden, still looking in the window, just the same as she was when they first met. Ganon hasn't chased her out.

Or she came back; Link's possession of the Triforce contradicts his coming back even earlier, especially since he's never once time traveled physically. Oh, and the Door of Time was open. And we see him actually putting the Master Sword down. Really, meeting Zelda in that spot was probably just a "full-circle" allusion.

[Impossible]

I was totally uninterested in this discussion for a while so I don't know if it's been mentioned, but Link can't learn Saria's Song and play it for the Skull Kid until after meeting Zelda. A few other things have been pointed out along those lines, but I've forgotten what they all are now... Obviously there's TP - the Gorons and Zoras talk about the legendary hero, meaning Link already completed those events. And, of course, the clincher: the Door of Time is open when Link returns to the past. We know this for two reasons: firstly, Zelda tells him to close it, and you can't close something that was never open. Secondly, if it were closed and the Spiritual Stones hadn't been collected, Link would be trapped forever inside the Temple of Time. Sounds hard to believe...

The basic idea of the timeline split is that Link was sent back to the moment when he had the choice to take the Master Sword or leave it. THAT is what produces the split: the decision to close the (just opened) Door of Time and not take the Master Sword, preventing OoT's events. Going back further than that would be useless, and may not even have been possible. And since Link never physically jumps through time, he logically went back to a time when he was already physically in the Temple of Time - which is required anyway, due to the trapped inside issue above.

[Lexxi Aileron]

According to Zelda, closing the Door of Time probably is the actual cause of the split. The effects of opening and walking through it in TP seem to support this, as the Door of Time literally is a "road between times." Given this, it really makes little difference when Link returned to the past in terms of the timeline splitting, as closing the Door by itself will have caused a time split. We can use context clues to try to figure it out-- but there's really nothing. The Triforce splits anyway, so I tend to think that he returned after Ganondorf touched the Triforce and that Zelda intended for him to summon the sages to act preemptively before Ganondorf could conquer Hyrule.

They could've atleast said "This is worse than the time Ganondorf attacked" or something to the effect. But no, no one knows who the hell he is except a couple Maidens.

This has been a pretty standard trend since OoX.

[Evilsbane]

They've apparently had that reputation for a while, as they had it for atleast a couple generations, when NPCs mentioned things like "Ever since the Thief King was born, etc."

No no no. What I'm saying is that even if they are traditionally thieves, it's usually in a rogueish sense where they're simply seen as noble nomads (like the way gypsies have a reputation for stealing stuff in a 'cheeky chappy' type way. But they're only seen to be savage when Ganondorf is in charge.

They could've atleast said "This is worse than the time Ganondorf attacked" or something to the effect. But no, no one knows who the hell he is except a couple Maidens.

As I recall, neither the Zora nor the Gorons mention Ganondorf in TP. And yet, the hero is said to be legendary. Easy if he embarked on a few more adventures before leaving for Termina.

OoT Ganon and FSA Ganon, in this theory, are the same person. So depicting one is the same as depicting another. Why didn't the Sages mention the Four Sword? Well, why didn't anyone mention where Link's sailboat went in PH? At the end of TWW, he's in the KoRL boat. In PH, it's gone. In AoL, Link doesn't have any of the weapons he had collected in LoZ. In MM, Link is never mentioned to have the ToC. Why were none of these things mentioned? Because they're different games and why would a game developer start telling the gamer about a sword that won't feature in the game?

You aren't seriously comparing a plot device to in-game weapons, are you? That's just utterly lazy.

Aside from the LoZ-AoL comparison, I believe that the KoRL and the ToC are fairly important. Enough so as to warrant a mention. Y'know, in MM they might say 'oh by the way, he has a sacred relic engraved on his hand' or something to that effect. Or in PH, they might say 'hey, he had a boat which he went everywhere in, but after a while he got bored with it'.

Or she came back; Link's possession of the Triforce contradicts his coming back even earlier, especially since he's never once time traveled physically. Oh, and the Door of Time was open. And we see him actually putting the Master Sword down. Really, meeting Zelda in that spot was probably just a "full-circle" allusion.

Yeah, that's the part that confuses me; they're really rather vague on what happens in the child timeline between OoT-TP. Ganondorf attacks and gets caught but that's all we're really told. I might reconsider what time Link gets sent back to, but it DOES make the Malon thing a contradiction. Hmm.

According to Zelda, closing the Door of Time probably is the actual cause of the split. The effects of opening and walking through it in TP seem to support this, as the Door of Time literally is a "road between times." Given this, it really makes little difference when Link returned to the past in terms of the timeline splitting, as closing the Door by itself will have caused a time split. We can use context clues to try to figure it out-- but there's really nothing. The Triforce splits anyway, so I tend to think that he returned after Ganondorf touched the Triforce and that Zelda intended for him to summon the sages to act preemptively before Ganondorf could conquer Hyrule.

If he did that, who would use the Master Sword to stop Ganon? Link can't until he's old enough.

[Lexxi Aileron]

If he did that, who would use the Master Sword to stop Ganon? Link can't until he's old enough.

No one. Ganondorf doesn't have the upper hand or the element of surprise in the new history; the sages instead have those advantages, so they will be able to rein him in.

[MikePetersSucks]

No no no. What I'm saying is that even if they are traditionally thieves, it's usually in a rogueish sense where they're simply seen as noble nomads (like the way gypsies have a reputation for stealing stuff in a 'cheeky chappy' type way. But they're only seen to be savage when Ganondorf is in charge.

Yea, Hyrule has never been that morally ambiguous. If they're thieves, I doubt they have any sort of good reputation, as opposed to FSA, where there's no hint of thievery, and they're portrayed as wise and almost sagelike.

As I recall, neither the Zora nor the Gorons mention Ganondorf in TP. And yet, the hero is said to be legendary. Easy if he embarked on a few more adventures before leaving for Termina.

He's legendary because he saved both their races on OOT already, and MIGHT have helped in capturing Ganondorf. Whether the Zora or the Gorans mention him is irrelevant in this case because other people do and acknowledge his evil.

Aside from the LoZ-AoL comparison, I believe that the KoRL and the ToC are fairly important. Enough so as to warrant a mention. Y'know, in MM they might say 'oh by the way, he has a sacred relic engraved on his hand' or something to that effect. Or in PH, they might say 'hey, he had a boat which he went everywhere in, but after a while he got bored with it'.

Well, he still has the ToC in MM, and he never does anything, so it's irrelevant, and once the KoRL lost it's spirit, there's really no point hanging onto it when he's traveling with a bunch of pirates anyway. Pragmatic reasons, both, which doesn't suffice as to why the TP Sages wouldn't use the Four Sword when, in their knowledge, is the only blade that's been effective against Ganondorf. "lol evils bane evils shmane."

Yeah, that's the part that confuses me; they're really rather vague on what happens in the child timeline between OoT-TP. Ganondorf attacks and gets caught but that's all we're really told. I might reconsider what time Link gets sent back to, but it DOES make the Malon thing a contradiction. Hmm.

Really, the OOT-MM-FS-FSA-LTTP connection is really kind've pushing it, anyway. I hear the popular choice is to put them inbetween TP and LTTP. They have more in common with the latter anyway, though that means you'll have to solve FSA's ending with LTTP's backstory.

Personally, I put the FS Saga games, TMC included, in an entire alternate universe for the time being.

[Evilsbane]

Yea, Hyrule has never been that morally ambiguous. If they're thieves, I doubt they have any sort of good reputation, as opposed to FSA, where there's no hint of thievery, and they're portrayed as wise and almost sagelike.

They're also portrayed as poor in FSA. I.e. they haven't been stealing since Ganondorf got kicked out.

He's legendary because he saved both their races on OOT already, and MIGHT have helped in capturing Ganondorf. Whether the Zora or the Gorans mention him is irrelevant in this case because other people do and acknowledge his evil.

Same in FSA. The Gerudo mention him and acknowledge his evil.

Well, he still has the ToC in MM, and he never does anything, so it's irrelevant, and once the KoRL lost it's spirit, there's really no point hanging onto it when he's traveling with a bunch of pirates anyway. Pragmatic reasons, both, which doesn't suffice as to why the TP Sages wouldn't use the Four Sword when, in their knowledge, it's the only blade that's been effective against Ganondorf. "lol evils bane evils shmane."

Why they wouldn't use it when? If you mean during the execution, they made it pretty clear that they weren't expecting Ganon to be immune from death. If you mean when they are talking to Link, Link already has the Master Sword which was forged specifically to fight an evil Triforce-wielder. If you mean in between, Ganon was safely sealed in the Twilight Realm.

Really, the OOT-MM-FS-FSA-LTTP connection is really kind've pushing it, anyway. I hear the popular choice is to put them inbetween TP and LTTP. They have more in common with the latter anyway, though that means you'll have to solve FSA's ending with LTTP's backstory.

They have more in common with ALttP because they're all 2D; obviously they'll look and feel more connected. I bet we'll never see Ganon in a 2D game in Gerudo form.

Personally, I put the FS Saga games, TMC included, in an entire alternate universe for the time being.

Well, that's ONE solution.

[MikePetersSucks]

They're also portrayed as poor in FSA. I.e. they haven't been stealing since Ganondorf got kicked out.

Poor? Where? I never read that. They seemed pretty well off to do in FSA.

Same in FSA. The Gerudo mention him and acknowledge his evil.

Because he stole a Trident, instead of anything he'd already done before FSA.

Why they wouldn't use it when? If you mean during the execution, they made it pretty clear that they weren't expecting Ganon to be immune from death.

That's stupid; even if they thought that, why not use a weapon with proven effectiveness against him? The holy Four Sword is probably way more powerful than the sword they made on the spot.

They have more in common with ALttP because they're all 2D; obviously they'll look and feel more connected. I bet we'll never see Ganon in a 2D game in Gerudo form.

Maidens, Knights, Dark Worlds, Moon Pearls, A few temples with similar architecture, an almost identical castle, similar geography by Zelda standards, etc. etc. Really, you're only making it sound like you never played FSA.

[NM87]

I was totally uninterested in this discussion for a while so I don't know if it's been mentioned, but Link can't learn Saria's Song and play it for the Skull Kid until after meeting Zelda. A few other things have been pointed out along those lines, but I've forgotten what they all are now... Obviously there's TP - the Gorons and Zoras talk about the legendary hero, meaning Link already completed those events. And, of course, the clincher: the Door of Time is open when Link returns to the past. We know this for two reasons: firstly, Zelda tells him to close it, and you can't close something that was never open. Secondly, if it were closed and the Spiritual Stones hadn't been collected, Link would be trapped forever inside the Temple of Time. Sounds hard to believe...

The basic idea of the timeline split is that Link was sent back to the moment when he had the choice to take the Master Sword or leave it. THAT is what produces the split: the decision to close the (just opened) Door of Time and not take the Master Sword, preventing OoT's events. Going back further than that would be useless, and may not even have been possible. And since Link never physically jumps through time, he logically went back to a time when he was already physically in the Temple of Time - which is required anyway, due to the trapped inside issue above.

Hmm, this makes perfect sense. Knowing this, how do the events told in TP play out? Link has not entered the SR yet. It is also a fact that Ganondorf's conquest was only an attempt, meaning he did not enter the SR. This would prove the SR is undisturbed. So...this means that he must have received the Triforce sometime after he was captured.

Maidens, Knights, Dark Worlds, Moon Pearls, A few temples with similar architecture, an almost identical castle, similar geography by Zelda standards, etc. etc.

This doesn't prove FSA is a prequel only that it happens in the same time period as ALTTP, either before or after. Let it be known.

Edited by NM87, 27 January 2009 - 10:40 AM.

[Impossible]

Yes, it shows that it's around the same time period, but it's extremely easy to find chronological links that obviously imply which one comes first. The trident. The Lost Woods and the thieves. I'd say the complete lack of the Triforce is pretty telling, since AoL's backstory and LoZ require that Link took it back to Hyrule, which is actually the only logical outcome of ALttP anyway, since Link was the master of the Triforce.

[Viral]

Don't forget that FSA shows Ganondorf claiming the Trident of Power, and then transforming into Ganon. LttP Ganon already has the Trident, so FSA must come before LttP in that respect.

Also, Ganon (in FSA) is sealed within the Four Sword at the end of the game, and then LttP has the Palace of the Four Sword in the Dark World. At the end of Palace of the FS, there is the broken remains of the FS.
This implies that the Sages sealed the Sword in the DW, and then Ganon broke free, but he was stuck in the DW (which sets up pretty nicely for LttP).

Edited by Insizor, 28 January 2009 - 02:16 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Hmm, this makes perfect sense. Knowing this, how do the events told in TP play out? Link has not entered the SR yet. It is also a fact that Ganondorf's conquest was only an attempt, meaning he did not enter the SR. This would prove the SR is undisturbed. So...this means that he must have received the Triforce sometime after he was captured.

I disagree.

Also, Ganon (in FSA) is sealed within the Four Sword at the end of the game, and then LttP has the Palace of the Four Sword in the Dark World. At the end of Palace of the FS, there is the broken remains of the FS.
This implies that the Sages sealed the Sword in the DW, and then Ganon broke free, but he was stuck in the DW (which sets up pretty nicely for LttP).

The canon status of the Palace of Four Swords is very much up to debate; I wouldn't really use it for evidence.

[NM87]

Yes, it shows that it's around the same time period, but it's extremely easy to find chronological links that obviously imply which one comes first. The trident. The Lost Woods and the thieves. I'd say the complete lack of the Triforce is pretty telling, since AoL's backstory and LoZ require that Link took it back to Hyrule, which is actually the only logical outcome of ALttP anyway, since Link was the master of the Triforce.

The Trident passage in FSA has turned out to be very ambiguous, since it can be interpreted a number of ways. The thieves in the Lost Woods are there because of the chaos whilst the thieves of ALTTP are Blinds thieves. Not the same thieves - two different motives and back-stories. Lack of the Triforce doesn?t prove that it is before ALTTP or that it is a poor predecessor to LOZ and AOL because of that, it only proves that there was no Triforce mentioned.

Besides, its completely possible for FSA to come after LOZ, in a rebuilt Hyrule according to the ancient scrolls. The state of Hyrule at the end of LOZ and the purpose of AOL could point to the Triforce?s power recreating the Hyrule of old once the evil has finally been defeated.

Don't forget that FSA shows Ganondorf claiming the Trident of Power, and then transforming into Ganon. LttP Ganon already has the Trident, so FSA must come before LttP in that respect.

Recent discoveries put the Trident scene more likely as the rebirth of an ancient evil rather than the first time the evil is born. Since the man who rediscovers the Trident becomes Ganon, its safe to assume that the resurrected demon was a previous Ganon. A Ganon who never had existed if FSA came before ALTP.

[Lexxi Aileron]

It is also a fact that Ganondorf's conquest was only an attempt, meaning he did not enter the SR.

We don't know how successful his attempt was, and it's irrelevant because he was inevitably captured and thrown in the slammer anyway. No matter the case with respect to his progress, his efforts were thwarted. We can say nothing about his conquest from TP's description aside from his objective and the fact that it took place.

The thieves in the Lost Woods are there because of the chaos whilst the thieves of ALTTP are Blinds thieves. Not the same thieves - two different motives and back-stories.

It seems to be implied that the thieves from ALttP are among those from Blind's hideout, whereas it also seems to be implied in FSA that the same thieves emerged in Kakariko Village during the chaos sown by Ganon in that game and fled/were exiled to the Lost Woods sometime thereafter. I see no reason why the former should be obsolete due to the latter; it was clearly a reference to ALttP's Lost Woods thieves no matter the case.

Besides, its completely possible for FSA to come after LOZ, in a rebuilt Hyrule according to the ancient scrolls. The state of Hyrule at the end of LOZ and the purpose of AOL could point to the Triforce?s power recreating the Hyrule of old once the evil has finally been defeated.

Not even the Hyrule of old, necessarily, as it only resembles the old Hyrule in passing. Swamps appear that were not around in OoT (or TP), new forests spring up, new temples are built, Lake Hylia seems to have "reset" in the 2D games, etc.

Recent discoveries put the Trident scene more likely as the rebirth of an ancient evil rather than the first time the evil is born. Since the man who rediscovers the Trident becomes Ganon, its safe to assume that the resurrected demon was a previous Ganon. A Ganon who never had existed if FSA came before ALTP.

Well, that's not entirely true, given that OoT came before the whole lot of them (and, as you said, that LoZ can predate FSA as well).

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 28 January 2009 - 04:26 PM.

[Viral]

Also, Ganon (in FSA) is sealed within the Four Sword at the end of the game, and then LttP has the Palace of the Four Sword in the Dark World. At the end of Palace of the FS, there is the broken remains of the FS.
This implies that the Sages sealed the Sword in the DW, and then Ganon broke free, but he was stuck in the DW (which sets up pretty nicely for LttP).

The canon status of the Palace of Four Swords is very much up to debate; I wouldn't really use it for evidence.

I think it is suitable evidence.

What are your thoughts on the Trident?

[Impossible]

Wasn't there some more definitive FSA-ALttP evidence last time we had a massive argument about this? I've managed to conveniently forget what the clincher was, but I'm fairly sure something made it impossible, besides the trident and the thieves. Lex?

And I feel this is relevant, because having FSA be after ALttP, and showing a third (and final) Ganon would actually solve one of the biggest contradictions of the entire timeline, which arises between FSA and ALttP. But as nice as that would be, I just don't think it's what was intended with FSA. But then, who goddamn knows what was intended with FSA? What was intended isn't even in the game. >_< I wish so much we knew what the original story was. That could be the answer to all of this.

Edited by Impossible, 28 January 2009 - 08:17 PM.

[Fin]

I wish so much we knew what the original story was. That could be the answer to all of this.

But if we knew the originally intended story would it really make a difference? Surely we should be going by the final material, whatever the reasons for the changes.

[Impossible]

Because the original story would probably help to explain what was left over from it, which probably involves the more complex parts of the story. Which is what we're dealing with here.