139 replies to this topic

[Raien]

Who based their societies upon WHAT, pray tell?

Environment has a larger impact on culture than history. Native Americans famously came across a land bridge from Asia, yet their culture is strongly based upon their own environment, not their Asian heritage. Likewise, the culture of farming, trading and even piracy in TWW will have developed as a response to the island environment. The legends are the only evidence of a remaining cultural connection with the Hyrulians, which hardly indicates an interest in establishing a new kingdom based on the legends. You don't see the Christians try to re-create the Garden of Eden, after all. For one thing, the kingdom is supposed to be holy (like the Garden of Eden); it isn't something that the islanders can simply re-create. When the Deku Tree's forest paradise does come to fruition, the change of environment is going to lead to a new cultural shift, which can only distance the people further from the Hyrulians, not bring them closer.

Edited by Raian, 26 November 2008 - 03:03 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Let it be known there is dissent among the ranks.

I don't think that any Hyrule game coming after TWW is impossible, just that it's very far-fetched and more likely to happen on the TP side.

My reasons of the King's wish also differ.

To the thread topic: He was talking in a "when we made OoT" sense, so I don't know if it would hold true now.

Edited by CID Farwin, 26 November 2008 - 02:51 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

If the names of the land and the hero that saved it are lost to the sea, then I don't know why the Sages' names would persevere, especially when LTTP kind've makes it clear Sages don't usually have their names go down in history.

[wring]

Maybe its a different kingdom with the name "Hyrule". The old Hyrule is gone, but what's to stop them from making a new country and naming it Hyrule? If Hyrule is the name of the continent that the country Hyrule is located on, the name would make perfect sense. Its like naming China China!

[Raien]

Maybe its a different kingdom with the name "Hyrule". The old Hyrule is gone, but what's to stop them from making a new country and naming it Hyrule? If Hyrule is the name of the continent that the country Hyrule is located on, the name would make perfect sense. Its like naming China China!

1) It would be a weird coincidence that the islanders would just happen to name it Hyrule when no one remembers the name of the original kingdom.
2) It would be a weird coincidence that all the magical items and divine connection from the destroyed Hyrule under the sea just so happen to appear in this new land built above the ocean.

In short, this idea clearly doesn't work.

[Showsni]

If Hyrule is the name of the continent that the country Hyrule is located on, the name would make perfect sense. Its like naming China China!

China is in Asia.

I'm going to stick with my sages are named after towns theory.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Ergo Turks are the Roman Empire. Fantastic, Lex.

Ergo, the kingdom developed by the Hylians is the Hyrule kingdom, rather like the Church that derives from Rome is the Roman Church? What a strangely farfetched notion!

1) It would be a weird coincidence that the islanders would just happen to name it Hyrule when no one remembers the name of the original kingdom.
2) It would be a weird coincidence that all the magical items and divine connection from the destroyed Hyrule under the sea just so happen to appear in this new land built above the ocean.

1) Except ironically the main characters, the very ones setting out on that peculiar endeavor to build a new land, who specifically express the desire for it to be the "next Hyrule."
2) If by "all the magical items" you mean "the Master Sword" and if by "divine connection" you mean the sage, knight, and hero traditions that were shown to still be in place after the flood, sure.

When the Deku Tree's forest paradise does come to fruition, the change of environment is going to lead to a new cultural shift, which can only distance the people further from the Hyrulians, not bring them closer.

I would argue that, with the exception of ALttP, every single 2D game released supports this trend. The Four Sword games, for an example, place a strong emphasis on Force the likes of which we see nowhere else.

You don't see the Christians try to re-create the Garden of Eden, after all.

Actually, that's arguably the entire mission of Christianity.

If the names of the land and the hero that saved it are lost to the sea, then I don't know why the Sages' names would persevere, especially when LTTP kind've makes it clear Sages don't usually have their names go down in history.

It's not really up to you, though, is it?

[Raien]

Ergo, the kingdom developed by the Hylians is the Hyrule kingdom, rather like the Church that derives from Rome is the Roman Church? What a strangely farfetched notion!

But the islands are not the Hyrule kingdom, are they Lex? That was the fact Arturo was referring to in his example; the Turks were originally derived from the Roman Empire (like the islanders were derived from the Hyrulians), but they weren't culturally dependent on their heritage.

1) Except ironically the main characters, the very ones setting out on that peculiar endeavor to build a new land, who specifically express the desire for it to be the "next Hyrule."

Way to subvert the facts there, Lex. The heroes did express a desire for a new Hyrule, but they were encouraged by the King to call it something different. With the King's death, it should be assumed that the heroes respected his wishes.

2) If by "all the magical items" you mean "the Master Sword" and if by "divine connection" you mean the sage, knight, and hero traditions that were shown to still be in place after the flood, sure.

By "magical items", I'm referring to the general magics of Hyrule, such as the elements. By "divine connection", I'm referring to Hyrule's status as the holy land chosen by the gods. And how are people supposed to find the Sacred Realm when the new Hyrule is built many miles above the original portals?

Actually, that's arguably the entire mission of Christianity.

Do you have any proof that any Christians have ever considered transforming the world into an image of the Garden of Eden? And metaphors don't count, because the supposed "new" Hyrule is clearly not metaphorical.

Edited by Raian, 27 November 2008 - 05:50 AM.

[Nameless_Joe]

So what's the deal with the town(s) named Kasuto? Has anyone ever determined why there is no OoT character named Kasuto?

[Showsni]

He or she is just very well hidden.

[Nameless_Joe]

He or she is just very well hidden.

...and the player meets him/her after finding the Triforce, right? I was thinking more along the lines of a cancelled sage or secondary character.

[wring]

So what's the deal with the town(s) named Kasuto? Has anyone ever determined why there is no OoT character named Kasuto?

maybe we'll meet them in a future game?

[MikePetersSucks]

Or the statement is generally bunk and was only made as an afterthought to cater to the fans' rabid need for continuity.

[wring]

Or the statement is generally bunk and was only made as an afterthought to cater to the fans' rabid need for continuity.

I doubt that it was only by chance that the seven Sages ended up with the EXACT same names as seven cities in Adventures of Link. It couldn't have possibly been something they came up with afterwards.

[Showsni]

Or the statement is generally bunk and was only made as an afterthought to cater to the fans' rabid need for continuity.

I doubt that it was only by chance that the seven Sages ended up with the EXACT same names as seven cities in Adventures of Link. It couldn't have possibly been something they came up with afterwards.

Well, obviously it's not a coincidence that the names are the same. But it is unlikely that it was meant to be a storyline plot point; it's much more likely that it was just a homage to the older game. How else do you explain Mido?

[MikePetersSucks]

Continuity nods are made all the time without having to be timeline hints.

[wring]

Well, why would they be lying about the reason they gave the sages those names? They are clearly stating that the reason they named them that. There's no reason to not believe that what they are saying is true.

[Raien]

Well, why would they be lying about the reason they gave the sages those names? They are clearly stating that the reason they named them that. There's no reason to not believe that what they are saying is true.

You're completely missing the point, wring. Here's an example of what we're arguing; Aonuma once said that TP was being developed to fill the gap between OoT and TWW. If Aonuma is asked about TP's development in the future, he may refer to that original intended placement. But it doesn't mean that TP still takes place in the Adult timeline (especially after Aonuma himself stated later that it took place in the Child Timeline).

Likewise in this recent interview, Aonuma was referring to an original development intention, not the state of the timeline today. TWW destroys Hyrule, which makes it impossible for AoL to take place in the Adult timeline. Aonuma says nothing to contradict that fact.

[wring]

Well, why would they be lying about the reason they gave the sages those names? They are clearly stating that the reason they named them that. There's no reason to not believe that what they are saying is true.

You're completely missing the point, wring. Here's an example of what we're arguing; Aonuma once said that TP was being developed to fill the gap between OoT and TWW. If Aonuma is asked about TP's development in the future, he may refer to that original intended placement. But it doesn't mean that TP still takes place in the Adult timeline (especially after Aonuma himself stated later that it took place in the Child Timeline).

Likewise in this recent interview, Aonuma was referring to an original development intention, not the state of the timeline today. TWW destroys Hyrule, which makes it impossible for AoL to take place in the Adult timeline. Aonuma says nothing to contradict that fact.

There's your problem. He corrected himself then, and he was corrected when he said the OoT-LoZ/Aol-ALttP timeline, atleast that's what I heard. BUt nobody's corrected him on this point, so one would assume that it hasn't been corrected because its still valid, and so there's nothing to correct.

[MikePetersSucks]

I don't think you quite get what's meant by "original intent." He wasn't being asked about a current timeline plot point, just the origin of the Sage's names and if there was a connection to AoL. He said that yes, there was one when OOT was first developed, but there's nothing saying it still stands.

[Sign of Justice]

Original intent =/= recent intent.
Anyways, on the topic of games taking place on the AT. I'd say with TRR, OoX, LA, LoZ, FSA/LttP taking place in an island Hyrule I'd say that it makes more sense to place those on the AT. Plus the fact that tMC makes refrences to Triumph Forks and OoX makes OoX-(Maybe LA)-tMC-FS/FSA-LttP-(Maybe LA) look even more realistic. And the fact that the IW/SW has to be OoT means that the games should take place on the AT.

[Raien]

There's your problem. He corrected himself then, and he was corrected when he said the OoT-LoZ/Aol-ALttP timeline, atleast that's what I heard. BUt nobody's corrected him on this point, so one would assume that it hasn't been corrected because its still valid, and so there's nothing to correct.

You've highlighted the only thing that was completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Let's pretend that Aonuma didn't correct himself in that example; wouldn't Ganondorf's death and Link's possession of the ToC prove that TP couldn't take place between OoT and TWW anyway? Evidence in the games are enough to refute original developer statements, and that's exactly what TWW did to the original OoT>ALttP connection (including the naming of the Sages).

Anyways, on the topic of games taking place on the AT. I'd say with TRR, OoX, LA, LoZ, FSA/LttP taking place in an island Hyrule I'd say that it makes more sense to place those on the AT. Plus the fact that tMC makes refrences to Triumph Forks and OoX makes OoX-(Maybe LA)-tMC-FS/FSA-LttP-(Maybe LA) look even more realistic. And the fact that the IW/SW has to be OoT means that the games should take place on the AT.

1)TRR is not canon.

2) OoX, LA, LoZ and ALttP do not depict an island Hyrule (believe it or not, a kingdom can be near the sea without being an island. i.e. France).

3) TMC's sky depicts a moving background which establishes that the islands below are not Hyrule. The sea exists to distinguish the clouds.

4) TMC's Triumph Forks reference is placed alongside several easter-eggs (i.e. joke references). That, along with the lack of accessibility to players, gives us reason to disregard it as a deliberate timeline reference.

5) The appearance of the Oracles in TMC was also an Easter Egg. The house-finding side-quest is a parody of the development of OoX (the cancelling of Farore's
house represents the cancelling of her OoX game).

6) A timeline connection between FSA and ALttP is made impossible due to the fact that both games refer to two separate origins for Ganon. The Triforce was responsible for Ganondorf the Thief's transformation into the King of Darkness in ALttP, thus it could not be FSA's Trident.

7) Although OoT was developed as the Imprisoning War, TWW then killed that original intended connection. There's no reason to believe that OoT is the IW today.

Edited by Raian, 01 December 2008 - 05:02 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

Because his statement is about Ocarina of Time, a game he did work on, and its relationship to Adventure of Link.

That's exactly what I was bitching about, while Eiji Aonuma has some standing ground with regards to OoT, he cannot speak for Legend of Zelda, Adventure of Link, A Link to the Past or Link's Awakening, a series storyline he had no prior understanding of used in games he wasn't involved in developing.

This sounds like a generic "I don't want to believe this so I'll find bulls*** reasons to discredit it" argument. Just saying.

Aye but here's some food for thought: I dismiss the man as a reputable source seeing as people are too stubborn to accept how TWW fucked up the tranquillity present in the Zelda timeline as spectacularly as it did. Lord, people once believed there was only one Link before that odd thing was conceived; even worse still was that everyone thought it plausible for ALTTP to still work into the chronology as the very LAST game set in Hyrule... now its virtually impossible to place that title in either child or adult timeline.

Thank you so much Eiji Aonuma. What would the canon do without you?

This means that Aonuma only referred to the fact that Adult OoT was originally intended to take place before AoL (something we already knew from other developer statements). It does not mean that Adult OoT still takes place before AoL today, after the creation of TWW and TP.

No. He can't speak for AoL. How many times are you guys going to make me repeat myself? Are we caught in a timeloop? Are you all doing it intentionally?

After lots and lots of debating on the subject, everyone except Lex will tell you that the idea of the people reforming Hyrule on the Deku Tree's forest island is not only farfetched but totally contradictory to the message in TWW. The King of Hyrule's wish was to destroy the kingdom so that the people could start afresh on a new land disconnected from the traditions of the past, and that is what the players were left with. To bring back Hyrule would be a complete reversal of that message, making the King's wish ultimately irrelevant.

I for one am rather thankful someone has the sense here to realise his intentions; Eiji shoving the series in a new although slightly uncomfortable direction makes it impractical for the older games to follow on from TWW/PH. The sooner we accept that, the better, I hazard.

Actually, that's arguably the entire mission of Christianity.

No. The goal of Christianity, same as all religions, is to get more followers onto Christianity. Belief or disbelief rests with you.

You're completely missing the point, wring. Here's an example of what we're arguing; Aonuma once said that TP was being developed to fill the gap between OoT and TWW. If Aonuma is asked about TP's development in the future, he may refer to that original intended placement.

It didn't take us too long to figure out that he had lied, but certainly kept us all interested in TP though.

[Raien]

No. He can't speak for AoL. How many times are you guys going to make me repeat myself? Are we caught in a timeloop? Are you all doing it intentionally?

I don't understand what you're saying. Aonuma worked on OoT, he can speak about OoT's development, he can refer to the fact that OoT's Sages were named after AoL's towns in order to give the impression that AoL's towns were named after the Sages in-continuity. And Aonuma isn't the first person to refer to the Sages' naming history; a scriptwriter for OoT mentioned this same thing shortly after OoT's release.

[spunky-monkey]

I don't understand what you're saying. Aonuma worked on OoT, he can speak about OoT's development, he can refer to the fact that OoT's Sages were named after AoL's towns in order to give the impression that AoL's towns were named after the Sages in-continuity. And Aonuma isn't the first person to refer to the Sages' naming history; a scriptwriter for OoT mentioned this same thing shortly after OoT's release.

He's not the authority on AoL. As one of the staff's designers he has some weight when speaking about OoT, but not in regards to, connecting, or referring, the former.

That's like saying Jonathan Mostow's the guru on the Terminator movies just because he directed T3.

[Sign of Justice]

1)TRR is not canon.

2) OoX, LA, LoZ and ALttP do not depict an island Hyrule (believe it or not, a kingdom can be near the sea without being an island. i.e. France).

3) TMC's sky depicts a moving background which establishes that the islands below are not Hyrule. The sea exists to distinguish the clouds.

4) TMC's Triumph Forks reference is placed alongside several easter-eggs (i.e. joke references). That, along with the lack of accessibility to players, gives us reason to disregard it as a deliberate timeline reference.

5) The appearance of the Oracles in TMC was also an Easter Egg. The house-finding side-quest is a parody of the development of OoX (the cancelling of Farore's
house represents the cancelling of her OoX game).

6) A timeline connection between FSA and ALttP is made impossible due to the fact that both games refer to two separate origins for Ganon. The Triforce was responsible for Ganondorf the Thief's transformation into the King of Darkness in ALttP, thus it could not be FSA's Trident.

7) Although OoT was developed as the Imprisoning War, TWW then killed that original intended connection. There's no reason to believe that OoT is the IW today.

1) Proof for it not being canon? I see many storyline refrences. Plus the fact it was made by nintendo. There is no reason to believe it is not canon. As it also gives origins for Tingle.

2) Funnily though that the OoA past has more water than OoA present. Suggesting that the GDTs plan is working. TRR also suggests the same. LoZ's Hyrule is the same as AoL's Hyrule of course. And AoL Hyrule has more water than it has full mountain land. The fact that Geography is almost identical from FSA-LttP, plus the kakariko theif's hideout was in FSA. And was abandoned in LttP and that you can find the broken four sword in LttP GBA remake.

3) But it shows that the land is a sea.

4) You can disregard damn near anything by saying it is a cameo/easter egg.

5) What about the figurines that say Nayru, Din and Farore came from Holodrum and Labrynna and that they are descendants from a line of priestess'/oracles?

6) I fail to see how that is a contradiction.

7) Actually it does no such thing. One of the maidens in LttP says that Ganon refound the SR. Or something to that extent. Also the SW cannot take place on the CT. Because it was the first time the Triforce leaves the SR. And I think you will agree with me that TP is nothing like the SW.


Also, care to explain how the AoL BS works on the CT? The Triforce has to be out of the SR. And it has to be the first Zelda. Meaning that it can only take place in a new Hyrule or right after the events of tWW.

[Raien]

He's not the authority on AoL. As one of the staff's designers he has some weight when speaking about OoT, but not in regards to, connecting, or referring, the former.

That's like saying Jonathan Mostow's the guru on the Terminator movies just because he directed T3.

This is one of those things which I would argue depends entirely on context. What you're actually referring to is the public's willingness to accept a new writer's take on an earlier writer's story and characters. If it's unpopular, like T3, the audience tends to disregard it as canon. If it's popular, like the new Batman films, then most audiences are more than willing to let the changes become standard.

OoT is as critically popular as you can get within the medium of video games; there's nothing really to discredit the scriptwriters' take on the Zelda timeline. I certainly don't see anyone else trying to assert that Aonuma & co. shouldn't be messing with the stories of older games. Within that context, I believe that if Aonuma developed OoT as an origin behind ALttP, which was in turn designed as an origin for LoZ>AoL, I think it's safe to say we can accept Aonuma's word on the subject.

[Raien]

1) Proof for it not being canon? I see many storyline refrences. Plus the fact it was made by nintendo. There is no reason to believe it is not canon. As it also gives origins for Tingle.

-It's not a serious depiction of the Zelda mythology; it's a spoof. It spoofs conventions in Zelda, and I don't see that as a justification to accept it's canoninity (no more than Austin Powers is a canon part of the James Bond universe).

-It was not developed by Nintendo, but by a second/third party called Vanpool. Nintendo EAD develops the Legend of Zelda series.

-As for origins for Tingle, the character is different in every game so I don't see how TRR really matters in that respect. There is no one Tingle just like there is no one Link or Zelda.

2) Funnily though that the OoA past has more water than OoA present. Suggesting that the GDTs plan is working. TRR also suggests the same. LoZ's Hyrule is the same as AoL's Hyrule of course. And AoL Hyrule has more water than it has full mountain land. The fact that Geography is almost identical from FSA-LttP, plus the kakariko theif's hideout was in FSA. And was abandoned in LttP and that you can find the broken four sword in LttP GBA remake.

-First of all, put the GDT's plans into its proper context. It was not an all-important statement central to TWW's storyline and the timeline in general; it was an optional quotation that explained the meaning of the Korok ceremony. To attach an added emphasis relating to the timeline blows the whole thing out of its clearly intended proportion. Furthermore, it defeats the impact of the King's wish, which was to destroy Hyrule. If the people just built a new one, then the King achieved nothing of importance.

PS: The GDT's plan was to unite all the islands into one large island. If that island is, supposedly, a new Hyrule, then an unrelated island of Labrynna should not be affected. You cannot tie the change in water level in Labrynna to the GDT.

-Second, the geography of Hyrule is always changing to facilitate the developers needs. From a narrow perspective, Hyrule is depicted as a simple circular kingdom, but from a wider perspective, it is shown to be a continent surrounded by ocean and further land (belonging to the kingdom) in the West. The Great Flood is not needed to explain why a continent is surrounded by ocean.

-As the for the broken Four Sword in ALttP GBA remake, the Capcom developers stated that it was never their intention to relate it to the storyline/timeline. It's an official easter egg.

3) But it shows that the land is a sea.

Of course, because a plain blue background is the best contrast for white platforms. It's not like Capcom could use the standard black pit background.

Also, look at Hyrule from the beanstalk perspective; you can clearly see stretches of mountains far into the distance. It shouldn't be a surprise if there is an ocean beyond that, because all continents have to reach the sea at some point.

4) You can disregard damn near anything by saying it is a cameo/easter egg.

Which is where context comes into play. If something is presented in a language that players cannot understand, then it stands to reason that the writers weren't intending players to work out the timeline from it. And let's not forget the fact that it is surrounded by other random joke references.

5) What about the figurines that say Nayru, Din and Farore came from Holodrum and Labrynna and that they are descendants from a line of priestess'/oracles?

I honestly don't think they matter. The characters were introduced to TMC to facilitate a development joke; figurine descriptions aren't going to change that fact.

6) I fail to see how that is a contradiction.

ALttP: Ganondorf the thief enterred the Sacred Realm, touched the Triforce and was transformed into the Demon King of Darkness.
FSA: Ganondorf the thief enterred a Pyramid, touched a magic Trident and was transformed into the Demon King of Darkness.
Extra clue: A single incarnation of Ganondorf is only liable to transform into the Demon King once, according to Japanese mythology (from which this part of the series is known to derive from).

Oh, and let's not forget that Ganon was sealed in the Four Sword in FSA's ending (which was in turned sealed in the Sanctuary by the Maidens), and there is no possible way for either Ganon or the Four Sword to get into the Sacred Realm from that position. Not without fanfiction anyway.

7) Actually it does no such thing. One of the maidens in LttP says that Ganon refound the SR. Or something to that extent. Also the SW cannot take place on the CT. Because it was the first time the Triforce leaves the SR. And I think you will agree with me that TP is nothing like the SW.

-A maiden said that Ganondorf the thief rediscovered the Sacred Realm after centuries since the Hyrulians lost its location. Ganon the Demon King did not exist until after the Sacred Realm was rediscovered.

-While it was vaguely suggested in ALttP that the Triforce did not leave the Sacred Realm before the Imprisoning War, it is generally considered irrelevant due to the game's age and the sentence's lack of emphasis.

-Why does the SW have to be represented in any particular game? Does TWW's backstory or TMC's backstory have to be represented in a game? If we look at the SW literally, it was the Knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon, not Link (AND NO, LINK IS NOT A KNIGHT OF HYRULE! The term refers to the family/group, not the bloodline).

Also, care to explain how the AoL BS works on the CT? The Triforce has to be out of the SR. And it has to be the first Zelda. Meaning that it can only take place in a new Hyrule or right after the events of tWW.

Alright, let me explain how our theories work here. Aonuma stated in 2007 that the timeline is developed simply by adding each new game to the timeline; previous continuity is not a practical consideration. On top of that, it has also been stated that the developers refuse to create a confusing continuity within any particular game, which rules out ideas like the Imprisoning War featuring a different Ganon to the one appearing in ALttP or a flood taking place in-between the events. With this understanding in mind, we believe that a couple of inconsistencies in the older games in the timeline are much more likely than an overly-convoluted sequence of events in general. We don't believe the developers have ever cared enough to try and fit every sentence of script from ten-fifteen year old games into the current continuity. We're not even sure if the old 2D games even really exist in the current continuity.

Here's how each game has been added to the timeline.

LoZ is the first game.
AoL is a sequel LoZ.
ALttP is a prequel to LoZ.
LA is a sequel to ALttO.
OoT is a prequel to ALttP.
MM is a sequel to OoT.
Oracles are stand-alone titles.
FS is a stand-alone title.
TWW is a sequel to OoT.
FSA is a sequel to FS.
TMC is a prequel to FS.
TP is a sequel to OoT.
PH is a sequel to TWW.

Beyond these established connections, nothing is entirely founded. Regarding AoL's BS, we simply believe it to be the first in a specific naming tradition related only to that story, not a tradition stretching back to the beginning of time. Regarding the Imprisoning War, we simply believe it to be a separate event that takes place sometime after TP, with no relation to TP.

PS: Are you by any chance a follower of the Lexxi Aileron school of timeline theorising? The very specific use of random quotes and visual details is Lex's trademark.

Edited by Raian, 02 December 2008 - 10:04 AM.

[spunky-monkey]

1) Proof for it not being canon? I see many storyline refrences. Plus the fact it was made by nintendo. There is no reason to believe it is not canon. As it also gives origins for Tingle.

You cannot be serious; who honestly gives a crap about Tingle's origins SoJ?

4) You can disregard damn near anything by saying it is a cameo/easter egg.

Not a particularly clever statement on your part considering this franchise has multiple Mario cameos - take the Yoshi Doll from LA for example.

7) Actually it does no such thing. One of the maidens in LttP says that Ganon refound the SR. Or something to that extent. Also the SW cannot take place on the CT. Because it was the first time the Triforce leaves the SR. And I think you will agree with me that TP is nothing like the SW.

You just contradicted yourself right there. First you say the pre-OoT timeline can accommodate past events that *somehow* may involve the IW from ALTTP, then dismiss immediately afterwards concluding OoT was the first story on the Sacred Realm.

This is one of those things which I would argue depends entirely on context. What you're actually referring to is the public's willingness to accept a new writer's take on an earlier writer's story and characters. If it's unpopular, like T3, the audience tends to disregard it as canon. If it's popular, like the new Batman films, then most audiences are more than willing to let the changes become standard.

It boils down to common sense, how can someone give commentary on a game's timeline/plot/storyline that they didn't help to make? Popularity of the masses or what is perceived as de-facto often determines a series' course. Personally I think that just plain sucks, I know what you're saying is true to a very large extent, but that mindset from the gamers has total disregard for a future game riddled with hideous continuity errors, yet still magically connects with the older classics, because it's popular.

I can only accept Eiji Aonuma's viewpoint after checking the relevancy of said topic: for instance we're not going to consult him on the Zelda artwork, or a game he didn't make. Likewise Eiji cannot be held responsible for any shortcomings or criticism of those games either.

-Why does the SW have to be represented in any particular game? Does TWW's backstory or TMC's backstory have to be represented in a game? If we look at the SW literally, it was the Knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon, not Link (AND NO, LINK IS NOT A KNIGHT OF HYRULE! The term refers to the family/group, not the bloodline).

I'm not entirely sure what you imply by "bloodline" sometimes Raian, look all we need to know is that ALTTP/TOTG Link is the last surviving descendant of the Knights:

You are perhaps the last one
to carry on the blood-line of
the Knights...
It is ironic that the last one in
the line has the potential to
become the Hero of legend.

What defines a Knight in the Zelda universe anyway? Someone who upholds the peace in the King's name? Protector of the weak and good? Link seems to have all these fundamental virtues of a legendary knight to start with.

[Raien]

It boils down to common sense, how can someone give commentary on a game's timeline/plot/storyline that they didn't help to make? Popularity of the masses or what is perceived as de-facto often determines a series' course. Personally I think that just plain sucks, I know what you're saying is true to a very large extent, but that mindset from the gamers has total disregard for a future game riddled with hideous continuity errors, yet still magically connects with the older classics, because it's popular.

I think there's a distinction here between speaking for the original author and expanding upon the original author's work. I don't believe Aonuma can say what the original writer was thinking about AoL, but he can talk about his own ideas in expanding the original author's work (which is what he did in naming the Sages).

And for the record, (I said it once and I'll say it again) Aonuma is only repeating what an OoT scriptwriter said ten years ago, and that scriptwriter may be (if I recall correctly) the scriptwriter for previous Zelda games as well.

What defines a Knight in the Zelda universe anyway? Someone who upholds the peace in the King's name? Protector of the weak and good? Link seems to have all these fundamental virtues of a legendary knight to start with.

The Japanese term for "Knights of Hyrule" is "knight family", which distinguishes them a group that protects the peace in Hyrule. But individuals in the bloodline become "heroes", and in TP were referred to as part of the "hero's bloodline".