818 replies to this topic

[Showsni]

Yeah, we haven't seen davogones around here for a while. If you were a member before 2004, then all of the posts (and everything) was lost in a hack, which is a shame; I don't think any other posts have been deliberately mass erased. Some of it can still be found on the interent archive.

[sdp]

hahahaha:

Everyone is forgetting the cd-i games. If Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule is indeed the ancestor of King Harikan, then we must assume the two timelines converge at one point. If the Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon take place directly after Link's Adventure, we must use the formula for timeline y to calculate just how many years pass between Skyward Sword and the Oracle games.

After extensive research, I found that the answer is 7. That means there are repeating timelines on separate planes (micro timelines as I like to call them) all taking place within the 7 years Link was frozen during OOT. The only explanation is the sages unintentionally created a dimensional rift while imprisoned. This can be attributed to Gwonam's search for his house during the Faces of Evil which was also trapped in a pocket dimension similar to the one the sages created.

In other words, Link and Ganon are the same person!

[ganonlord6000]

I was just on ZU earlier today and that site is getting a little scary lately with so many crazy theories. especially after SS was announced. I came across someone there who thought that OOT occurs twice becasue of the 3DS remake. If remakes counted, then it would occur more than twice...

[Average Gamer]

I was just on ZU earlier today and that site is getting a little scary lately with so many crazy theories.

Look at it now.

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/zelda-theorizing/111495-games-on-the-adult-timeline.html

Ollathir, geography is one of the least important things in the entire Zelda series, your theory completely contradicts the points and messages of TWW, PH, and ST, and the Deku Tree's plan was, at best, a red herring. The Deku Tree's plan shows no progress on the Great Sea, and it may even be naturally doomed to failure, as the trees begin dying for what is ultimately no apparent reason. Daphnes completely erased Hyrule in TWW's ending to boot, so there's no land to drag up, and Daphnes' wish may have even obliterated the Master Sword. Speaking of which, the Master Sword and everything else from the old world was completely forgotten by the time of TWW, including the names for Hyrule and the Triforce. If that weren't enough, naming two entirely separate, distant lands Hyrule would be confusing to the citizenry and the players.

Because of the "TMC's ending is only referring to that Link," argument, Ollathir is practically asking for Impossible to rip him to shreds.

Edited by Average Gamer, 26 June 2010 - 03:57 AM.

[Impossible]

Wait, are people still taking the Deku Tree theory seriously? I thought that baseless, contradictory bullshit was gone once and for all thanks to ST.

And don't try to lure me back in there. Ollathir is delusional. Just looking at the topics he makes... Like the "Dekurok" insanity.

I'm gonna go update my timeline document some time soon. It's way overdue.

[Pinecove]

Because of the "TMC's ending is only referring to that Link," argument, Ollathir is practically asking for Impossible to rip him to shreds.

I don't think it CAN be for every Link now that we have the release of SS to worry about.
That being said, it could still refer to the "first adventure" thing in the FSS.

And don't try to lure me back in there. Ollathir is delusional. Just looking at the topics he makes... Like the "Dekurok" insanity.

Ollathir, is a very open minded theorist who likes to try different approaches to topics. Once for fun, he argued devil's advocate for a pre OoT LoZ. While we both knew the topic wasn't possible, it was fun to debate. Please stop acting as though you know everyone who roams the earth, and please get to know people before you talk behind their backs.

[Average Gamer]

I don't think it CAN be for every Link now that we have the release of SS to worry about.

We know next to nothing about the game. TMC could just as easily come before SS as it could come after SS.

That being said, it could still refer to the "first adventure" thing in the FSS.

Doubtful, as TMC is portrayed almost as folklore and seems to serve as an explanation for a number of things, such as items being in the grass and the Armos. Also, it'd be awkward and pointless to have an origin story for one Link's hat if every other Link naturally had one.

[Pinecove]

the Armos.

The Armos are enchanted stone warriors or something in LoZ, and in OoT they were made by the Gorons. The Minish most certainly did not create all of them.

That being said, I'm afraid Impossible might start ranting at me as I see he's online, and is probably reading this topic, so I'm going to skidadle.
Just remember... not everything has just one interpretation.

-Pinecove

[ganonlord6000]

I don't think it CAN be for every Link now that we have the release of SS to worry about.

We know next to nothing about the game. TMC could just as easily come before SS as it could come after SS.

That being said, it could still refer to the "first adventure" thing in the FSS.

Doubtful, as TMC is portrayed almost as folklore and seems to serve as an explanation for a number of things, such as items being in the grass and the Armos. Also, it'd be awkward and pointless to have an origin story for one Link's hat if every other Link naturally had one.

That is a good thing to mention. And I have recently gotten in to arguments about the Dark mirror and the Mirror of Twilight over there. The way everyone describes the mirror debate doesn't even come close to what it's actually like since there are very few similarities between the two mirrors in the first place. Besides, even with FSA before TP, wouldn't the Dark mirror still have to exist in AOL?

Wait, are people still taking the Deku Tree theory seriously? I thought that baseless, contradictory bullshit was gone once and for all thanks to ST.

And don't try to lure me back in there. Ollathir is delusional. Just looking at the topics he makes... Like the "Dekurok" insanity.

I'm gonna go update my timeline document some time soon. It's way overdue.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? So was the unflooding theory that the Japanese ending should have thrown out the window.

[Pinecove]

Besides, even with FSA before TP, wouldn't the Dark mirror still have to exist in AOL?

You're confusing me...

[Average Gamer]

The Armos are enchanted stone warriors or something in LoZ, and in OoT they were made by the Gorons.

It's doubtful that the Armos were truly made by the Gorons in OoT, as the Armos seem to be against the Gorons (making the mine hazardous, etc.)

The Minish most certainly did not create all of them.

Probably not all of them, but TMC implies that they created the first Armos and introduced them to Hyrule.

That being said, I'm afraid Impossible might start ranting at me as I see he's online, and is probably reading this topic, so I'm going to skidadle.

Don't worry about that. Openly saying that you're afraid of Impossible isn't going to make anything better either.

Besides, even with FSA before TP, wouldn't the Dark mirror still have to exist in AOL?

I don't see where you're coming from. Please explain.

Edited by Average Gamer, 28 June 2010 - 05:17 PM.

[Person]

I've been toying with the idea that the Four Sword series is just being ignored with the new games. The way Eiji Aonuma talks about new games, he seems to regard multiplayer Zelda as something of a failed experiment, and the 3D games already have a cohesive timeline without them.

[ganonlord6000]

The Armos are enchanted stone warriors or something in LoZ, and in OoT they were made by the Gorons.

It's doubtful that the Armos were truly made by the Gorons in OoT, as the Armos seem to be against the Gorons (making the mine hazardous, etc.)

The Minish most certainly did not create all of them.

Probably not all of them, but TMC implies that they created the first Armos and introduced them to Hyrule.

That being said, I'm afraid Impossible might start ranting at me as I see he's online, and is probably reading this topic, so I'm going to skidadle.

Don't worry about that. Openly saying that you're afraid of Impossible isn't going to make anything better either.

Besides, even with FSA before TP, wouldn't the Dark mirror still have to exist in AOL?

I don't see where you're coming from. Please explain.

Well, Dark Link is the final boss in AOL. He really didn't get a back-story until FSA when it was mentioned he was created by the dark mirror. Zelda took the mirror in FSA, and we can assume the royal family kept it and the king who hid the ToC put the mirror in the Dark palace as the final test for anyone who comes after the ToC: That person's own shadow. Well, that is just a theory I came up with. Come to think of it, that actually explains why he's in OOT. When Ganon attacked Hyrule Castle, he could have stolen the mirror and placed it in the water temple.

I've been toying with the idea that the Four Sword series is just being ignored with the new games. The way Eiji Aonuma talks about new games, he seems to regard multiplayer Zelda as something of a failed experiment, and the 3D games already have a cohesive timeline without them.

The timeline does make more sense without the interference of the FSS. That is why I think the FS games are better off before OOT. It is the perfect place for the games to avoid interfering with the Triforce storyline. Just like the oracles are better off towards the end of the CT. Those two are a mess as well. Why do the capcom games have to be so confusing?!

Edited by ganonlord6000, 29 June 2010 - 11:17 AM.

[Sir Turtlelot]

I always saw Link's Shadow from AoL, as taking the old saying "You are your own worst enemy." to another level, and was nothing more than the final challenge for Link before he received the ToC.

For the Dark Link in OoT, I saw him as nothing more than an enemy.

I don't see why the Dark Mirror would be necessary for either.

[MikePetersSucks]

Especially since it's never so much as hinted that the various Dark Links have any meaningful connection.

[Pinecove]

It's doubtful that the Armos were truly made by the Gorons in OoT, as the Armos seem to be against the Gorons (making the mine hazardous, etc.)

Why do they have the goron symbol on them then?

Don't worry about that. Openly saying that you're afraid of Impossible isn't going to make anything better either.

Well, Dark Link is the final boss in AOL. He really didn't get a back-story until FSA when it was mentioned he was created by the dark mirror. Zelda took the mirror in FSA, and we can assume the royal family kept it and the king who hid the ToC put the mirror in the Dark palace as the final test for anyone who comes after the ToC: That person's own shadow. Well, that is just a theory I came up with. Come to think of it, that actually explains why he's in OOT. When Ganon attacked Hyrule Castle, he could have stolen the mirror and placed it in the water temple.

See below.

Especially since it's never so much as hinted that the various Dark Links have any meaningful connection.

This.

Unless LoZ comes after FSA and FSA doesn't come directly before ALttP (which may be likely, but putting LoZ there is just kindof weird unless you place the FSS on the Adult timeline which is...meh) AoL's Dark Link definitely does not have a connection to FSA's Dark Links.

[Average Gamer]

Why do they have the goron symbol on them then?

Possibly to label them as a rocky enemy, sentient stone, etc. They certainly don't appear to be on the Gorons' side.

Regarding this Dark Link stuff, my stance is that the elderly sorcerer seen at the end of AoL made that Dark Link as a sort of final trial. The Dark Mirror was not involved in the process. I also believe that OoT Dark Link was merely Link's reflection brought to life by Ganondorf or the magic of the Water Temple. In fact, when Link crosses the island in the center of the room and makes Dark Link spawn, Link's reflection vanishes from the water.

[Pinecove]

Possibly to label them as a rocky enemy, sentient stone, etc.

Sorry, but this is just stupid. Sentient stone?
If this was the case, most rocks would have the goron symbol on them.

You either need to get back to me with a good argument, or your point is moot. Same with the Armos from LoZ. They're enchanted stone warriors.

[Average Gamer]

Sorry, but this is just stupid. Sentient stone?

A living entity made out of rock, much like the Gorons. Either way, the Armos don't appear to have the interests of the Gorons in mind, so it's unlikely that the Gorons made them.

[ganonlord6000]

My theory on Dark Link is just as likely as a connection between the Mirror of Twilight and the Dark mirror (which I don't see any similarities and I just played both FSA and TP recently). As for the armos, the minish probably made the first armos, then other races took them afterwards and made their own versions of them that couldn't be turned off.

[Pinecove]

A living entity made out of rock, much like the Gorons.

Last time I checked, the goron symbol wasn't branded on the gorons. It was created by them.

My theory on Dark Link is just as likely as a connection between the Mirror of Twilight and the Dark mirror (which I don't see any similarities and I just played both FSA and TP recently)

No it isn't.

As for the armos, the minish probably made the first armos, then other races took them afterwards and made their own versions of them that couldn't be turned off.

That point is moot as the events you just described could have occurred vice versa.

[Average Gamer]

Last time I checked, the goron symbol wasn't branded on the gorons. It was created by them.

I know that the Gorons treat it as a tattoo of sorts. What I'm saying is that the Armos might have simply borne it to highlight the fact that they, like the Gorons, were made out of stone.

[Pinecove]

I know that the Gorons treat it as a tattoo of sorts.

Source?

What I'm saying is that the Armos might have simply borne it to highlight the fact that they, like the Gorons, were made out of stone.

And I say that's EXTREMELY weak logic. Got anything better?

[Average Gamer]

Source?

It shows up on their arms as though it were made with black ink.

]Got anything better?

Not really. Just speculating since the Armos certainly don't seem to be on the Gorons' side, so it's unlikely that the Gorons made them.

[ganonlord6000]

Source?

It shows up on their arms as though it were made with black ink.

]Got anything better?

Not really. Just speculating since the Armos certainly don't seem to be on the Gorons' side, so it's unlikely that the Gorons made them.

I don't remember there ever being a connection between the gorons and the armos. Especially since the armos tried to kill them. The armos aren't really that important in the first place. They are just random enemies that have appeared in most of the games across multiple lands. TMC is the only game that seems to give an in-game origins story of the armos. As for the dark mirror, didn't Zelda seal its dark power in FSA and then took it with her? Not that it's important to the timeline either. This isn't the first time Nintendo has used multiple mirrors in a series.

I noticed that this site is a lot better (and more fun) when a lot of theories besides timeline theories are brought up. Most of the people here at LA need to allow more theories that aren't tossed out without a meaningful discussion. That is why I have left a few times to go to sites like ZU, ZI, ZD, and a few others. If the people here do allow members to mention theories without instantly dismissing them, maybe this place would be as active as other fan sites.

[Nerushi]

As for the dark mirror, didn't Zelda seal its dark power in FSA and then took it with her? Not that it's important to the timeline either. This isn't the first time Nintendo has used multiple mirrors in a series.

I smell so much hypocrisy about this. You express an open interest in wanting to 'discuss' the Dark Mirror, yet you insist on stating that it is 'not important', as if it was prohibited to discuss the Dark Mirror, or a taboo to admit that it is of relevance. This is particulary vexing as it is a fact, that the Dark Mirror is like, the first or second most important and story-driving object in Four Sword Adventures.
As far as this multiple mirror arguement goes, there is three major mirrors in the Zelda serie, the Magic Mirror, Dark Mirror and Mirror of Twilight. Only two are openly debated to actually have a relation.

I like to note, however, that whether the two mirrors are the same or not, it is always good for theorising to look at the both sides, rather than simply resorting to one side and try to suppress the other side. I used to have FSA after TP, and I remember that I strongly desisted even thinking about the two being the same, as that would contradict my placement. I know even now there are good arguement out there for why they shouldn't be the either, but now I mainly argue that there was intent for them to be the same, but Twiligth Princess evolved as a game in its own right after, and the mirror had to fit those purposes first, before statisfying those in FSA.

Consider this. Do people believe that The Sacred Grove, and the Lost Woods of ALTTP to be the same? I think many do. Mainly because it was good for their timelines. Those same people who believe that would also go on to openly reject the idea the Dark Mirror and the Mirror of Twilight being the same, because it was bad for their timelines. Their arguments was that they had different names. Or that they looked a different. Or that they was different in some other manner, like purpose, function, backstory and so forth. TP doesn't at all share all the functions of obtaining the MS as ALTTP did or even backstory, and the forest did in no way look the same, yet people believe it that it was intended to show that the two locations to be the same.
Well, for me its basically the same with the Dark Mirror and the Mirror of Twilight. I believe there is intent for them to be the same, and it is not without reason either.

I admit though, that the Dark Mirror alone cannot prove FSA placement, and thus is mainly less important. But coupling it with other pieces it might.

Edited by Nerushi, 01 July 2010 - 01:27 PM.

[Pinecove]

I don't remember there ever being a connection between the gorons and the armos.

WE ARE DEDUCING THI BASED ON THE GORON SYMBOL BEING ON THEM! PLEASE READ THE TOPIC NEXT TIME AS I HAVE REMINDED YOU AT LEAST 12 TIMES ON ZU!

I noticed that this site is a lot better (and more fun) when a lot of theories besides timeline theories are brought up. Most of the people here at LA need to allow more theories that aren't tossed out without a meaningful discussion. That is why I have left a few times to go to sites like ZU, ZI, ZD, and a few others. If the people here do allow members to mention theories without instantly dismissing them, maybe this place would be as active as other fan sites.

Agreed 100%.

@Average Gamer: I need to view the gorons before I get back to you on this one. And I won't be able to do that until tomorrow.

[ganonlord6000]

I smell so much hypocrisy about this. You express an open interest in wanting to 'discuss' the Dark Mirror, yet you insist on stating that it is 'not important', as if it was prohibited to discuss the Dark Mirror, or a taboo to admit that it is of relevance. This is particulary vexing as it is a fact, that the Dark Mirror is like, the first or second most important and story-driving object in Four Sword Adventures.
As far as this multiple mirror arguement goes, there is three major mirrors in the Zelda serie, the Magic Mirror, Dark Mirror and Mirror of Twilight. Only two are openly debated to actually have a relation.

I like to note, however, that whether the two mirrors are the same or not, it is always good for theorising to look at the both sides, rather than simply resorting to one side and try to suppress the other side. I used to have FSA after TP, and I remember that I strongly desisted even thinking about the two being the same, as that would contradict my placement. I know even now there are good arguement out there for why they shouldn't be the either, but now I mainly argue that there was intent for them to be the same, but Twiligth Princess evolved as a game in its own right after, and the mirror had to fit those purposes first, before statisfying those in FSA.

Consider this. Do people believe that The Sacred Grove, and the Lost Woods of ALTTP to be the same? I think many do. Mainly because it was good for their timelines. Those same people who believe that would also go on to openly reject the idea the Dark Mirror and the Mirror of Twilight being the same, because it was bad for their timelines. Their arguments was that they had different names. Or that they looked a different. Or that they was different in some other manner, like purpose, function, backstory and so forth. TP doesn't at all share all the functions of obtaining the MS as ALTTP did or even backstory, and the forest did in no way look the same, yet people believe it that it was intended to show that the two locations to be the same.
Well, for me its basically the same with the Dark Mirror and the Mirror of Twilight. I believe there is intent for them to be the same, and it is not without reason either.

I admit though, that the Dark Mirror alone cannot prove FSA placement, and thus is mainly less important. But coupling it with other pieces it might.

Um, the forest comparison really isn't a fair comparison mostly because it seems to be the same place from ALTTP (the way the light shines on the sword when it is in the pedestal) and the fact there is only one Master Sword (If you don't already know this, the MS backstory in the true ALTTP manual is the same as the story given in OOT). Most differences are for graphical and gameplay purposes anyway.
I'm saying that the mirrors could be the same, but I need to look at the two stories of the mirrors again to be certain. Or it could have been intended at one point, like you mentioned, but the mirror in TP was made to fit the plot of just TP. This should be a conversation for another thread.

WE ARE DEDUCING THI BASED ON THE GORON SYMBOL BEING ON THEM!

Come to think of it, I do remember seeing the OOT goron symbol on the Armos. I'll check that real quick and upload pictures of both. Then I'll get back to you.

Edit: Here they are (sorry if they aren't very clear):
First, the armos:
 Legend of Zelda, The - Ocarina of Time (U) (V1.2) snap0000.jpg   150.41K   10 downloads

Next, the gorons:

 Legend of Zelda, The - Ocarina of Time (U) (V1.2) snap0001.jpg   131.02K   9 downloads

Hmmm. The symbol might show that these armos belong to the gorons.Or at least their affiliation with the Gorons' Ruby because the symbol looks very much like it. I guess the individual games have their own origins for the armos. I'll toss out the possibility that the minish created all of the armos. Even though it is still possible for the minish to have created either very early or late versions of those statues.

Edited by ganonlord6000, 02 July 2010 - 01:17 PM.

[Impossible]

I reject the mirror thing because it's a stupid, terrible theory, not because it contradicts my timeline.

More significantly, though, I reject it as EVIDENCE, because it's not evidence. It's a theory. There's no burden of proof on me to deal with it, because someone else's theory doesn't create a contradiction in my timeline. Meanwhile, it's full of contradictions everywhere you look.

Edited by Impossible, 02 July 2010 - 09:38 PM.

[ganonlord6000]

I reject the mirror thing because it's a stupid, terrible theory, not because it contradicts my timeline.

More significantly, though, I reject it as EVIDENCE, because it's not evidence. It's a theory. There's no burden of proof on me to deal with it, because someone else's theory doesn't create a contradiction in my timeline. Meanwhile, it's full of contradictions everywhere you look.

you managed to sum up what I've been trying to get across the for most of this page in one post. As you have said in the past, a theory can't prove another theory.

Edited by ganonlord6000, 04 July 2010 - 03:20 PM.