83 replies to this topic

[Person]

OoT tells the origin story of Ganon. That is merely one of the reasons for its early placement. At the time, there was only one Ganon. Since he died in TWW and TP, the blue pig Ganon from the 2D gamed was given an origin in FSA. As Ganon has been shown to achieve feats of near-immortality and has fought three different Links in his OoT incarnation alone, he isn't meant to be the same type of recurring character as Link and Zelda. BS Zelda also shows him with a trident, indicating that developer intent meant for him to have one in LoZ. Thus, it has to come after FSA, in which Ganon gets the Trident.

[Alastair]

Since he died in TWW and TP, the blue pig Ganon from the 2D gamed was given an origin in FSA. As Ganon has been shown to achieve feats of near-immortality and has fought three different Links in his OoT incarnation alone, he isn't meant to be the same type of recurring character as Link and Zelda. BS Zelda also shows him with a trident, indicating that developer intent meant for him to have one in LoZ. Thus, it has to come after FSA, in which Ganon gets the Trident.

I've had a quick check through the Japanese translations of FSA and could not find any indication, one way or the other, that it was concieved to be the first time that Ganon gained the trident, rather than a re-incarnation recovering the trident owned by a prior incarnation.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your placement, just that your reasoning in this instance is flawed. It is also debatable whether Ganon is any more dead at the end of TP than he is at the end of aLttP, LoZ/AoL or OoX. There is as much necessity for a new origin story post any of those games, as there is post TP.

[MikePetersSucks]

I hold that the sources of those quotes are simply wrong; that Hylian blood is stronger during ALttP than in OoT.

Then everything is wrong. None of the games happened except MM. Ever.

How else can you explain Sahasralah using telepathy with ease, Fortune Tellers everywhere being able to predict your slightest move, and so on, whilst in OoT "I've never heard them"

Sahasralah is a descendant of the Sages, so his blood would be purer than the average Hyrulian either way. The Fortune Tellers are a game mechanic first and foremost, and may not even be Hylian for all we know, and as for OOT, who said having the ability to hear the gods means you will?

Also, (are we drifting into the realms of fanfiction? maybe a little) I'd call the wise men of each town in AoL Sages. "Each town has a wise man" we're told; coincidence that the same term is used for a Sage in ALttP? AoL has the Sage of Saria, the Sage of Rauru, the Sage of Ruto, Nabooru, Darunia, Mido, Kasuto, and let's not forget Impa and Zelda.

The Wise Men in LTTP were called Sages in the Japanese. Not so for the wise men of AOL.

An interesting thought is that maybe LoZ doesn't show a wasteland, but rather a pre-Hyrule. We don't see any example that there ever WAS a kingdom there after all (though you can blame that on them not planning ahead and graphical limitations). Maybe there's nothing there in AoL because there never was anything there. It just hadn't been established yet.

Then what's with all the pre-history mentioned? Back when Hyrule was one country and all that?

The only reason newer games retcon the Sleeping Zelda theory is because of the creator intent (evidence not from the games themselves) of ALTTP being the NES games' prequel (and ALTTP has to come after OOT, as the bloodline of the Hylians is thinning). If you retcon that instead, and put the NES games after TMC and before OOT, the Sleeping Zelda story stays intact without any real contradiction with any game or manual evidence

Except you have to answer the questions of how the Triforce got from Point A to Point B to Point C, etc., while in other placements the question usually solves itself within the context.

Yes, the Sleeping Zelda story as originally told and intended DOES threaten LTTP's placement as the NES games' prequel.

If you put the Sleeping Zelda story between LTTP and LOZ/AOL, then no, it doesn't. For all we know, the Sleeping Zelda is the same one from LTTP, and the King receive the Triforce from Link when he left the country to sail the seas.

Defeating Ganon is not necessarily the only answer to achieving peace. Although Hyrule is described a peaceful before Ganon attacked, the World was already in an age of chaos. Nothing is said that the peace in Hyrule was restored (other things could have caused unrest in Hyrule after Ganon and his minions were defeated). Yes, at the end of AOL, Zelda mentions that Link saved Hyrule. However, this does not mean peace has set in (at the end of ALTTP, Link has saved Hyrule, but in the LA manual, the kingdom is still mentioned as unpeaceful).

If Ganon is the only thing disrupting the peace, and he is defeated, and there is no war, how exactly is peace not around?

Also, the LA manual says the kingdom is unpeaceful because of fear of Ganon's return. Possibly a nod to AST.

Could you please show evidence other than manual art? I don't think that the creators, more specifically the graphic artists who drew those pictures, were thinking about level of pointiness and how it shows whether they are Hylian or not. They are shown as pointy. Although WW shows the difference between hylians and non-hylians, there is no reference to level of pointiness that would somehow make those shown in the LOZ/AOL manual art to be non-Hylians.

Every female in TWW has pointy ears to some degree, while we're told that the Roc only kidnaps girls with pointy ears, the highlights of the text making it explicitly clear that this only refers to certain girls in particular, like Tetra and Aryll, who are probably of a purer bloodline than others. Therefore, there's apparently a difference between "pointy" and "POINTY."

[Average Gamer]

Well I believe the intent is for there to be some degree of separation between Ganondorf and Ganon, seeing as the original telling of the Seal War states that the "King of Evil Ganon was born" when Ganondorf touched the Triforce.

That wasn't literal. It was saying "On this day the lowly thief became the mighty king."

[Person]

Since he died in TWW and TP, the blue pig Ganon from the 2D gamed was given an origin in FSA. As Ganon has been shown to achieve feats of near-immortality and has fought three different Links in his OoT incarnation alone, he isn't meant to be the same type of recurring character as Link and Zelda. BS Zelda also shows him with a trident, indicating that developer intent meant for him to have one in LoZ. Thus, it has to come after FSA, in which Ganon gets the Trident.

I've had a quick check through the Japanese translations of FSA and could not find any indication, one way or the other, that it was concieved to be the first time that Ganon gained the trident, rather than a re-incarnation recovering the trident owned by a prior incarnation.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your placement, just that your reasoning in this instance is flawed. It is also debatable whether Ganon is any more dead at the end of TP than he is at the end of aLttP, LoZ/AoL or OoX. There is as much necessity for a new origin story post any of those games, as there is post TP.

FSA Ganon has an origin story that conflicts with the one given in OoT. OoT Ganon also never used the Trident, but he did in all of the 2D games. OoT Ganon has also been shown to be able to transform at will, and seems to prefer his human form Trident Ganon is a pig all of the time. There does not need to be an origin story after ALttP because we have several different ways he could have been resurrected.

[Erimgard]

Well I believe the intent is for there to be some degree of separation between Ganondorf and Ganon, seeing as the original telling of the Seal War states that the "King of Evil Ganon was born" when Ganondorf touched the Triforce.

That wasn't literal. It was saying "On this day the lowly thief became the mighty king."

I don't see why you'd think that. According to the commentary, the word used can either mean a literal birth, or the beginning of something new. The Japanese says "The King of Evil Ganon was (born/something new) at this time"

Edited by Erimgard, 26 June 2009 - 11:17 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

It's semantics anyway. Either way, it has some random asshole gaining phenomenal evil powers he didn't have before.

[Average Gamer]

I don't see why you'd think that.

Because Ganondorf and Ganon are clearly the same guy, and that day merely marked his ascension into a kingly status. "So ends his time as a thief; so begins his reign as a king." Like MPS said, some asshole suddenly gained tremendous power.

Edited by Average Gamer, 26 June 2009 - 05:12 PM.

[bjamez7573]

The only reason newer games retcon the Sleeping Zelda theory is because of the creator intent (evidence not from the games themselves) of ALTTP being the NES games' prequel (and ALTTP has to come after OOT, as the bloodline of the Hylians is thinning). If you retcon that instead, and put the NES games after TMC and before OOT, the Sleeping Zelda story stays intact without any real contradiction with any game or manual evidence

Except you have to answer the questions of how the Triforce got from Point A to Point B to Point C, etc., while in other placements the question usually solves itself within the context.

I did answer this. At the end of AOL, Link has the whole Triforce. At the beginning of OOT, the Triforce is in the Sacred Realm with the Royal Family knowing exactly where it is and how to get it and all of the races have a certain role in protecting it. At the beginning of LOZ, Ganon attacks and steals the ToP when it was in use by the Royal Family. Its very conceivable that Link, along with the Royal Family, thought that protecting the Triforce in its resting place would be the best option since having the Royal Family use it would leave it vulnerable. Thus, the ToT is built, Ocarina of Time is made, the spiritual stones are crafted and given to the different races to protect...you get my point. Yes this is logical speculation, but then again, you have to do the exact same thing with a post LTTP placement. The Sleeping Zelda is strong enough evidence to place LOZ/AOL second in the timeline.

Yes, the Sleeping Zelda story as originally told and intended DOES threaten LTTP's placement as the NES games' prequel.

If you put the Sleeping Zelda story between LTTP and LOZ/AOL, then no, it doesn't. For all we know, the Sleeping Zelda is the same one from LTTP, and the King receive the Triforce from Link when he left the country to sail the seas.

Remember, originally it is told that the Zelda in chamber is the First Generation Sleeping Zelda. That is contradictory to placing the AOL backstory post LTTP and pre LOZ.

Defeating Ganon is not necessarily the only answer to achieving peace. Although Hyrule is described a peaceful before Ganon attacked, the World was already in an age of chaos. Nothing is said that the peace in Hyrule was restored (other things could have caused unrest in Hyrule after Ganon and his minions were defeated). Yes, at the end of AOL, Zelda mentions that Link saved Hyrule. However, this does not mean peace has set in (at the end of ALTTP, Link has saved Hyrule, but in the LA manual, the kingdom is still mentioned as unpeaceful).

If Ganon is the only thing disrupting the peace, and he is defeated, and there is no war, how exactly is peace not around?

Also, the LA manual says the kingdom is unpeaceful because of fear of Ganon's return. Possibly a nod to AST.

You were right on this, I was referring to the English manuals as evidence and I thought that Japanese ones weren't that different. I was wrong. That still doesn't mean that peace had to last forever after AOL

OoT tells the origin story of Ganon. That is merely one of the reasons for its early placement. At the time, there was only one Ganon. Since he died in TWW and TP, the blue pig Ganon from the 2D gamed was given an origin in FSA. As Ganon has been shown to achieve feats of near-immortality and has fought three different Links in his OoT incarnation alone, he isn't meant to be the same type of recurring character as Link and Zelda. BS Zelda also shows him with a trident, indicating that developer intent meant for him to have one in LoZ. Thus, it has to come after FSA, in which Ganon gets the Trident.

He was only able to achieve immortality because of the Triforce of Power. If he lost the Triforce, he is not shown to have near-immortality. BS zelda is questionable canon, and even if you were using it as indication of intent, that intent is old and since Eiji Anouma has taken the timeline in a new direction since then, it is possible that they would not consider the game BS zelda as their evidence of their intent any more. Even still, FSA doesn't have to be the first time the Trident is used. A game that explains the origins of an object doesn't necessarily have to be the first game to use it. Not to mention that the game says, "evil device reborn" (or at least that's the way I understood it being translated) which might indicate previous usage.

I have a question, then. Two games give us an origin for Ganon, but you place neither FSA nor OoT before LoZ, which is strange given the ALttP manual gives an origin for Ganon as well. So Ganon just shows up out of nowhere and then in OoT is trusted by the king? That seems backwards to me. The theory also relies on a bunch of fanfiction to bridge the gap between AoL and OoT. There is no evidence in OoT to suggest that the Sacred Realm has ever been opened before, and its intended placement was first in the timeline. Of course new games like TMC can come before it, but old games cannot.

To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear. Unfortunately, we just haven’t done that yet.

If what he is intending here is to bring the stories together, and if placing LOZ/AOL second can help with this by not retconning the sleeping zelda story as it was meant to be understood, then I think it is perfectly allowable to have old games come before newer ones. Because that intention was over 10 years old, if in-game evidence contradicts old creator intent (And at that time, they didn't really care about consistency in the timeline at all that much) then I say in-game evidence wins.

Just because two different Ganons are given an origins story doesn't mean they have to be the only two. There isn't enough in-game evidence in LOZ/AOL to connect him to ALTTP's Ganon or OOT's Ganon.

There isn't any evidence to suggest that the Sacred hasn't been opened before.

[MikePetersSucks]

Remember, originally it is told that the Zelda in chamber is the First Generation Sleeping Zelda. That is contradictory to placing the AOL backstory post LTTP and pre LOZ.

If the Sleeping Zelda is THE EXACT SAME ZELDA as the one you rescue in LTTP, there's no contradiction.

[Person]

Remember, originally it is told that the Zelda in chamber is the First Generation Sleeping Zelda. That is contradictory to placing the AOL backstory post LTTP and pre LOZ.

If the Sleeping Zelda is THE EXACT SAME ZELDA as the one you rescue in LTTP, there's no contradiction.

And take in mind that OoT was pretty much meant to be the prequel to everything. TMC, even if it comes first, it ultimately a side story that does not affect the overall timeline. To presume that it's not supposed to be where the developers said it was supposed to be is just making stuff up. There is evidence to suggest that the Sleeping Zelda is no longer meant to be the first Zelda, at least literally. And since it was written down in 1987, before the whole timeline thing even got brought up, it could just be something that the developers no longer take as complete gospel anymore. And as MPS said, ALttP Zelda could very well be the Zelda the story was talking about.

[MikePetersSucks]

And take in mind that OoT was pretty much meant to be the prequel to everything.

Yea, but we were working with a theory that the first three games could come pre-OOT, so

To presume that it's not supposed to be where the developers said it was supposed to be is just making stuff up. There is evidence to suggest that the Sleeping Zelda is no longer meant to be the first Zelda, at least literally. And since it was written down in 1987, before the whole timeline thing even got brought up, it could just be something that the developers no longer take as complete gospel anymore.

Quoted for Massive Fucking Truth.

I always find it stunningly dumb, personally, that people are willing to retcon placements of entire games and shift around the Imprisoning War like a hot potato from their original intent and placement, but the Sleeping Zelda story is SOMEHOW IMMUNE and must always be valid exactly as it was written.

[jacensolo06]

I always find it stunningly dumb, personally, that people are willing to retcon placements of entire games and shift around the Imprisoning War like a hot potato from their original intent and placement, but the Sleeping Zelda story is SOMEHOW IMMUNE and must always be valid exactly as it was written.

So true. They always seem to cling to the most inane details to justify their theories, but then ignore some of the most important things.

[Person]

I always find it stunningly dumb, personally, that people are willing to retcon placements of entire games and shift around the Imprisoning War like a hot potato from their original intent and placement, but the Sleeping Zelda story is SOMEHOW IMMUNE and must always be valid exactly as it was written.

So true. They always seem to cling to the most inane details to justify their theories, but then ignore some of the most important things.

You mean like Legend of the fairy?

[Average Gamer]

You mean like Legend of the fairy?

The Legend of the Fairy does stand out as a minor thing fans have tried to twist into something bigger. Also, fans have blinded themselves to a far more reasonable possibility; Tingle in TWW is the Hyrulian parallel of Tingle in MM, and TWW's Tingle just heard about the Hero of Time's exploits and made up his own story in turn.

[SOAP]

Quoted for Massive Fucking Truth.

I always find it stunningly dumb, personally, that people are willing to retcon placements of entire games and shift around the Imprisoning War like a hot potato from their original intent and placement, but the Sleeping Zelda story is SOMEHOW IMMUNE and must always be valid exactly as it was written.

While I can understand this, and I accept that OoT must come first (though TMC may or may not be an exception to that), there's still the issue with the hylians of OoT not being much different from the non-Hylians of ALttP. There's nothing that suggests that Hylian leange is in decline other than ALttP saying pure Hylains have become extremely rare and OoT telling us that HYlians are the dominant race. Both groups both have pointed ears also. At least TWW and TP had a mixture of both pointed and round ears despite ALttP being accepted as coming even later than TP.

OoT may bwe first because it shows how Ganondorf first becomes Ganon but a portrayal of the Hylian Hyrule in it's hay-day it is not. Heck most of the Sages in OoT are from races other than Hylians. But instead of putting OoT post LoZ, I'd just chalk it up to myths being embellished over time and Hylians never being the masters of magic taht we're led to believe. The only evidence of their magically infused blood is TWW's backstory explaining how the gods instructed the Hylians to take shelter in the mountaintops before the flood. This coincides what we've been told about their tall ears enabling them to hear the gods. That's probably all their magically infused blood is, just that ability alone which probably comes into use during a great crisis. So a random guy in Hyrule during a relatively peaceful time probably won't hear any gods.

I also don't know what you're talking about more girls with pointed ears in TWW. There's only Tetra, Aryll, Mila, and Maggie. All of them kidnapped or were attempted to be kidnapped by Ganondorf. Maybe an adult woman or two such as Link's grandmother but all of female children have round ears besides the one's I named. Sure I may be nitpicking here a bit but I don't know where you're coming up with this difference between pointy and POINTY. Are we of the business of scrutinizing how pointy a character's ears are now? That seems silly. A pointy ear is a pointy ear. Their might be humans characters in Zelda chronology that have pointed ears without being considered Hylian (Shad for example) but they differently have Hylian ears which each at least make them of Hylian descent. They probably just can't hear the God's anymore and that's what thinned out over the generations. The round ear folk could just be immigrants that eventually mix in with the locals which could explain why by ALttP people still have pointed ears but no longer considered to have magic-infused blood.

Edited by SOAP, 29 June 2009 - 05:55 AM.

[Masamune]

You mean like Legend of the fairy?

The Legend of the Fairy does stand out as a minor thing fans have tried to twist into something bigger. Also, fans have blinded themselves to a far more reasonable possibility; Tingle in TWW is the Hyrulian parallel of Tingle in MM, and TWW's Tingle just heard about the Hero of Time's exploits and made up his own story in turn.

Legend of the Fairy is based on Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland, it's the whole Hero of Time thing that is fishy.

[MikePetersSucks]

I also don't know what you're talking about more girls with pointed ears in TWW. There's only Tetra, Aryll, Mila, and Maggie. All of them kidnapped or were attempted to be kidnapped by Ganondorf. Maybe an adult woman or two such as Link's grandmother but all of female children have round ears besides the one's I named. Sure I may be nitpicking here a bit but I don't know where you're coming up with this difference between pointy and POINTY.

There's plenty of girls with visibly pointed ears throughout the game that weren't abducted. They weren't kidnapped, but apparently Ganondorf DOES have (most of) the girls with pointed ears and doesn't seem concerned with this, implying that there's some critical difference between average pointy ears, and Hylian pointy ears.

That seems silly. A pointy ear is a pointy ear. Their might be humans characters in Zelda chronology that have pointed ears without being considered Hylian (Shad for example) but they differently have Hylian ears which each at least make them of Hylian descent. They probably just can't hear the God's anymore and that's what thinned out over the generations. The round ear folk could just be immigrants that eventually mix in with the locals which could explain why by ALttP people still have pointed ears but no longer considered to have magic-infused blood.

That's pretty much exactly it. Just because someone has pointy ears and is of Hylian descent doesn't mean they're necessarily "Hylian."

Goddamn Gerudo. It's probably their fault.

Edited by MikePetersSucks, 29 June 2009 - 01:35 PM.

[bjamez7573]

And take in mind that OoT was pretty much meant to be the prequel to everything. TMC, even if it comes first, it ultimately a side story that does not affect the overall timeline. To presume that it's not supposed to be where the developers said it was supposed to be is just making stuff up. There is evidence to suggest that the Sleeping Zelda is no longer meant to be the first Zelda, at least literally. And since it was written down in 1987, before the whole timeline thing even got brought up, it could just be something that the developers no longer take as complete gospel anymore. And as MPS said, ALttP Zelda could very well be the Zelda the story was talking about.

Yes, I know that OOT was meant to be a prequel to everything in 1998 (with only 4 other games out). What evidence suggests that this is still the case? I haven't heard of any relatively new creator quotes or other new evidence to suggest that OOT was meant to be a prequel to everything. When a bunch of games come out since then and Anouma wants to take the timeline in a new direction, you have to question those old placements (which aren't based on game evidence)

So where is the evidence?

[MikePetersSucks]

Where is the evidence that it is no longer the case? Nothing contradicts it, so you're asking us to prove a negative, which is impossible. Without reason to think otherwise, it is our logical responsibility to assume the position is still valid.

[Person]

Where is the evidence that it is no longer the case? Nothing contradicts it, so you're asking us to prove a negative, which is impossible. Without reason to think otherwise, it is our logical responsibility to assume the position is still valid.

Exactly. OoT shows the origins of Ganon, who was of course meant to be the same Ganon we saw in the 2D games.
Also, TP is a sequel to OoT and has hints of a pre-ALttP placement.

And how do we know that "taking the games in a new direction" did not mean "abandoning stuff from 1987 that doesn't tie into the story arc we're doing right now?"

[MikePetersSucks]

I've seriously considered before if the first four games in the series weren't just abandoned from continuity or something.

[Person]

I've seriously considered before if the first four games in the series weren't just abandoned from continuity or something.

ALttP has had continuity nods in the form of FSA and TP. It's Aonuma's favorite game, he wouldn't write it out of canon. Now the first two haven't been referenced since OoS, so...

[MikePetersSucks]

then the first two games, then.

[Jarsh]

Honestly, if the first two didn't exist (well, there'd be no series), but it would make theorizing a little easier for me. One of these reasons being, of course, the Sleeping Zelda story.

[bjamez7573]

There is evidence to suggest that the Sleeping Zelda is no longer meant to be the first Zelda, at least literally.

what evidence?

I always find it stunningly dumb, personally, that people are willing to retcon placements of entire games and shift around the Imprisoning War like a hot potato from their original intent and placement, but the Sleeping Zelda story is SOMEHOW IMMUNE and must always be valid exactly as it was written.

What? example? I don't understand where this double-standard is coming from. The Imprisoning war's intent or story has not changed as told in ALTTP, its just OOT as story of Imprisoning War has. OOT really didn't explain the connection much at all, it was the creators who was using it to develop some of the aspects of OOT's story.

Where is the evidence that it is no longer the case? Nothing contradicts it, so you're asking us to prove a negative, which is impossible. Without reason to think otherwise, it is our logical responsibility to assume the position is still valid.

Exactly. OoT shows the origins of Ganon, who was of course meant to be the same Ganon we saw in the 2D games.
Also, TP is a sequel to OoT and has hints of a pre-ALttP placement.

And how do we know that "taking the games in a new direction" did not mean "abandoning stuff from 1987 that doesn't tie into the story arc we're doing right now?"

The thing is, Person, LOZ/AOL can work very nicely pre-OOT and into the story arc that they are doing right now, without contradictions in the game stories. I am not denying that it is a possibility that they would retcon that story as originally intended. But I believe that the evidence weighs more on keeping it as intended rather than retconning it.

MPS, you're right. If there aren't reasons to question their placement, we should still accept it. So here are the reasons I think that intent needs to be questioned:

1) The creator comments explaining their intent was not shown well through the games. They did not do a very good job explaining their connections (their intended placements) between the games in the games stories themselves - Making me think that their timeline placements shouldn't be seriously considered.

Not to mention Anouma's comment on making the storyline more clear:

To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear. Unfortunately, we just haven’t done that yet.

He seems clear that he intends to include LOZ and AOL in this. Obviously, the stories were not put together clearly before. This seems to reference the crappy job the creator's did in the past at connecting the games through their stories that indicated their intended placements. Also, he is trying to make the stories (of the games) come together more clearly – Why would he want to disregard the main intent of the sleeping Zelda story (to set a precedent for the naming of all Zeldas) when he can have the story as intended and still maintain continuity? To disregard this and just slap that story at the end of the child timeline because of OLD creator intent (That is not based on the game's stories) seems like a step backwards in the direction Anouma wants to take – making the stories fit together more clearly. The Sleeping Zelda story loses its meaning when put post-ALTTP.

2) In WW, as the King of Red Lions is explaining to Tetra about her origins, she is not just mentioned as just a descendent of the Royal family and called by her name Tetra, but in fact is called Zelda. He used that as her name just because she was of the Royal bloodline. This seems like an obvious connection to AOL's Zelda naming tradition, but that could only make sense in the timeline if LOZ/AOL was placed pre-OOT (obviously it couldn't in-between OOT and WW) and definitely questions the possibly of OOT's "being first" and ALTTP's "prequel to LOZ/AOL".

3) In the GBA rerelease of ALTTP, the references to LOZ and AOL are removed. Yes, there could be a number of reasons for this, but it is certainly a possibility that the creator's were trying to sever ALTTP's connection with LOZ/AOL to clear up the timeline. When LOZ and AOL were ported to the GBA – their stories in the manuals were reworded and paraphrased, but the meaning remained the same. However, with ALTTP, the manual story was severely cut down and the references to LOZ/AOL were removed (but by doing so did not change the story of ALTTP)

All of these reasons leave open the possibility that the creator intent behind those old intentions has changed – Yet I havn't seen any newer evidence that reaffirms such placements.

Where is the evidence that it is no longer the case? Nothing contradicts it,...

Yet there is a contradiction with their intended placements – the Sleeping Zelda story itself. This is why I think an old game story can take precedence over newer creator intent (in an era where the timeline was not seriously considered).

Of course, one of the problems with LOZ/AOL is that the creator's haven't really addressed them yet. I do think they will, though. I mean, they were the series that started it all - why would they just want to dump them?

Edited by bjamez7573, 04 July 2009 - 02:25 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

What? example? I don't understand where this double-standard is coming from. The Imprisoning war's intent or story has not changed as told in ALTTP, its just OOT as story of Imprisoning War has. OOT really didn't explain the connection much at all, it was the creators who was using it to develop some of the aspects of OOT's story.

Well, for example, Showsni's timeline as one big, huge example. His whole timeline's gimmick is that it's a massive trolling about timeline preconceptions. And then there's the whole business with the Four Swords games I don't think anyone wants to go into. I just find it hypocritcal that people are willing to shift around the order of the games into any manner they want and go to any lengths to justify it, but Sleeping Zelda MUST BE FIRST OMG NEVER MOVE IT EVERRRR

MPS, you're right. If there aren't reasons to question their placement, we should still accept it. So here are the reasons I think that intent needs to be questioned:

1) The creator comments explaining their intent was not shown well through the games. They did not do a very good job explaining their connections (their intended placements) between the games in the games stories themselves - Making me think that their timeline placements shouldn't be seriously considered.

That's stupid and arbitrary. If we're going to take that as "intent broken, let's move it around" simply because the connections aren't rock solid, then we're never going to get anywhere and everything is up for grabs and soon enough we're going to get people trying to canonize the CD-i games.

He seems clear that he intends to include LOZ and AOL in this. Obviously, the stories were not put together clearly before. This seems to reference the crappy job the creator's did in the past at connecting the games through their stories that indicated their intended placements. Also, he is trying to make the stories (of the games) come together more clearly – Why would he want to disregard the main intent of the sleeping Zelda story (to set a precedent for the naming of all Zeldas) when he can have the story as intended and still maintain continuity? To disregard this and just slap that story at the end of the child timeline because of OLD creator intent (That is not based on the game's stories) seems like a step backwards in the direction Anouma wants to take – making the stories fit together more clearly. The Sleeping Zelda story loses its meaning when put post-ALTTP.

Fair enough, but between people's placements of TMC, LTTP, TWW, and TP, OOT has already apparently lost it's intent and meaning as the Imprisoning war and the origin story of everything. For all the weight on it, the Sleeping Zelda story is fairly insignificant and only exists to serve as the macguffin explanation for the title of the series.

2) In WW, as the King of Red Lions is explaining to Tetra about her origins, she is not just mentioned as just a descendent of the Royal family and called by her name Tetra, but in fact is called Zelda. He used that as her name just because she was of the Royal bloodline. This seems like an obvious connection to AOL's Zelda naming tradition, but that could only make sense in the timeline if LOZ/AOL was placed pre-OOT (obviously it couldn't in-between OOT and WW) and definitely questions the possibly of OOT's "being first" and ALTTP's "prequel to LOZ/AOL".

Bad example. King Daphnes is shown to be obsessively attached to the past, and also transmutes Tetra to apparently look like his own daughter, Zelda. I'm sure he would've done this even without the naming tradition, he's borderline-crazy.

Also, some sicko is probably taking what I said and writing a fanfic of Daphnes brushing Tetra-Zelda's hair and cooing into her ear while she's gagged and stuff right now.

3) In the GBA rerelease of ALTTP, the references to LOZ and AOL are removed. Yes, there could be a number of reasons for this, but it is certainly a possibility that the creator's were trying to sever ALTTP's connection with LOZ/AOL to clear up the timeline. When LOZ and AOL were ported to the GBA – their stories in the manuals were reworded and paraphrased, but the meaning remained the same. However, with ALTTP, the manual story was severely cut down and the references to LOZ/AOL were removed (but by doing so did not change the story of ALTTP)

Not only was the bulk of LTTP's manual really superfluous and had no canonical basis, but it was also really, really long. I wouldn't take it as timeline shifting intent to trim that big sonofabitch down. As for severing connections, a lot of these "connections" were really arbitrary to begin with, and quite a few of them still remain in the Japanese GBA version, so it seems this was apparently NOA's decision.

Yet there is a contradiction with their intended placements – the Sleeping Zelda story itself. This is why I think an old game story can take precedence over newer creator intent (in an era where the timeline was not seriously considered).

Then in that case, there's only one timeline, one Link, LA takes place during AOL, and the Hero of Time keeps getting amnesia in his time skips.

If there's a contradiction between old and new creator intent, we should go with the new because the newer version is more up to date with the thoughts of their creators. You know, changing their minds and all that?

Of course, one of the problems with LOZ/AOL is that the creator's haven't really addressed them yet. I do think they will, though. I mean, they were the series that started it all - why would they just want to dump them?

I hope they're addressed as well, but it wouldn't be the first time. Anyone remember Mario's and Luigi's original backround story before Yoshi's Island retconned it and basically made the pre-Mushroom Kingdom games not exist?

[Person]

Sleeping Zelda hasn't been brought up since AoL itself, and ALttP itself seems to partially contradict it by setting the game far in the past but not mentioning the story anywhere in-game. It's like the Imprisoning War story: new games have muddied its original meaning quite considerably. I'm almost tempted to go with the NoA version: Zelda is put to sleep right before the game. Of course it's not canon, but it would simplify things.

[MikePetersSucks]

I simply say that it goes LTTP-LA-Sleeping Zelda-LOZ-AOL. The Tradition only states that all females must be named Zelda. That doesn't mean no Zeldas predated the sleeping one.

[Erimgard]

I simply say that it goes LTTP-LA-Sleeping Zelda-LOZ-AOL. The Tradition only states that all females must be named Zelda. That doesn't mean no Zeldas predated the sleeping one.

What's your interpretation on her being the "shodai" first gen/founder Zelda?