83 replies to this topic

[bjamez7573]

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

I see what you mean. This isn't my intention at all. If the evidence seems to point in a direction that doesn't agree with my timeline, I want to change my timeline. I'm interested in finding out what the timeline is, not just arguing a point of view. The reason I am arguing strongly for this timeline with LOZ/AOL pre-OOT is that evidence surrounding its other placement (ALTTP-LOZ-AOL) seems to be very slim, and the creator intent in the past doesn't seem to follow the pattern Anouma and the other creators are setting now. It seems to me that if Anouma was in charge of the storyline for those games, it would have been different. Of course no one will really know, and I could be completely wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence that shows that I couldn't be right.

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.

To be clear, I meant the creator comments from the time period of LOZ to about the release of OOT. Its not just that the connections aren't rock solid, its that there either wasn't any (ALTTP-LOZ/AOL) or there were contradictions in the stories (OOT and ALTTP imprisoning war [of course, this doesn't matter anymore, as this has been retconned]). Why would the creators do this in the games and then state a placement for the game?. For all of the other game connections (post OOT), they either haven't commented on them and we have to rely solely on game/manual evidence, or the creator comments showing a certain placement is shown through the game.

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.

Yes, OOT has lost that meaning due to contradictions with other games. However, the sleeping zelda story does not contradict with other games when you are only looking at the game stories (taking aside the back of the box of ALTTP, which doesn't add anything to the story, it is a just a reference to where the creator's wanted the game placed in the timeline). Sure, the sleeping zelda story may not be that significant, but it is the only thing that really has much significance for LOZ/AOL's placement.

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.

Just because he is attached to the past, he is considered crazy and therefore would call someone by his daughter's name? That seems far-fetched. Why do you consider him borderline crazy? I see him as passionate for his kingdom, but then he finally realized at the end that it was better to let it go.

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.

Could you show me where I can find the translated GBA ALTTP Japanese manual? I can't seem to find any post on the Translation's thread. I assume someone has done it already, I just can't find it. I've been curious on how different it was from the English version.

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?

The thing is, I don't think they really changed their mind about AOL's Sleeping zelda story (based on the reasons I said before [noted in the spoiler]), I just think that they didn't do a good job on consistency. That is different than retconning the "OOT is seal war" based on a clear indication in the games to make that connection impossible.

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.

I seems like more they just did a bad job of putting the games together. This is why Anouma talked about bringing the stories together more clearly.

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?

They had a background story? Never realized...was it in the manual?

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.

Those are two entirely different situations. The only things that connected ALTTP to LOZ/AOL was the back of the box and the Japanese ALTTP manual in the first sentence that says that it sets the stage for Hyrule. Both of these are removed in the GBA remake (Except I'm not sure about Japanese GBA ALTTP manual, as I haven't looked at it yet). The "OOT is Seal war" is broken by lots of in-game evidence, not just a mere two references (that seemed to have been removed later on).

[Person]

The basic jist is that we have no proof that creator intent has changed. The back of the ALttP box says that ALttP is before LoZ, and doesn't contain the Sleeping Zelda plot, indicating that creator intent for her to be the first was tenuous at best. We have no indication outside of the dubious Miyamoto timeline that the basic OoT-ALttP-LoZ order has changed. With the Seal War, we had sequels that broke the tight continuity the Seal War was supposed to have with ALttP. The Sleeping Zelda seems to have been retconned right out of the starting gate with ALttP.

[bjamez7573]

Tenous at best? Why would they be so explicit then?
Its not definitive proof, but I just gave 3 reasons why that intent could have possibly changed

1) 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.

Not to mention that creator comments contradict the meaning of the Sleeping zelda story. Don't we normally place game stories on a higher level of canon than creator quotes or back of the box text? I don't see why those measly two references that have been removed in the remake are the only reason to keep LOZ/AOL post ALTTP. How is that not enough evidence?

Usually with a retcon, it is the intent of the creators to purposely alter content in that specific game. In the case of ALTTP retconning the sleeping zelda story, I think Miyamoto just wasn't thinking of timeline continuity - he was just thinking of connecting the games for the fans - not to really connect the stories consistently because he didn't care about that.

[MikePetersSucks]

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

I personally don't agree with it, but if the Sleeping Zelda has to be one on screen, she's the only one that works.

I see what you mean. This isn't my intention at all. If the evidence seems to point in a direction that doesn't agree with my timeline, I want to change my timeline. I'm interested in finding out what the timeline is, not just arguing a point of view. The reason I am arguing strongly for this timeline with LOZ/AOL pre-OOT is that evidence surrounding its other placement (ALTTP-LOZ-AOL) seems to be very slim, and the creator intent in the past doesn't seem to follow the pattern Anouma and the other creators are setting now. It seems to me that if Anouma was in charge of the storyline for those games, it would have been different. Of course no one will really know, and I could be completely wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence that shows that I couldn't be right.

Conversely, I've yet to see any evidence that the original placement of LTTP-LOZ-AOL (and it is the original placement, let's agree on that or this'll go nowhere) has been changed. Aonuma MAY be attempting to alter it, but he hasn't done anything that does, yet, and it's asinine to speculate on the timeline based on unknowable future actions.

To be clear, I meant the creator comments from the time period of LOZ to about the release of OOT. Its not just that the connections aren't rock solid, its that there either wasn't any (ALTTP-LOZ/AOL) or there were contradictions in the stories (OOT and ALTTP imprisoning war [of course, this doesn't matter anymore, as this has been retconned]). Why would the creators do this in the games and then state a placement for the game?. For all of the other game connections (post OOT), they either haven't commented on them and we have to rely solely on game/manual evidence, or the creator comments showing a certain placement is shown through the game.

And this is different from almost every other non-OOT-sequel connection because....?

Yes, OOT has lost that meaning due to contradictions with other games. However, the sleeping zelda story does not contradict with other games when you are only looking at the game stories (taking aside the back of the box of ALTTP, which doesn't add anything to the story, it is a just a reference to where the creator's wanted the game placed in the timeline). Sure, the sleeping zelda story may not be that significant, but it is the only thing that really has much significance for LOZ/AOL's placement.

It's quite impossible to have any games go inbetween Sleeping Zelda and LOZ-AOL, and since to me it's quite obvious that they're not the first games...

Just because he is attached to the past, he is considered crazy and therefore would call someone by his daughter's name? That seems far-fetched. Why do you consider him borderline crazy? I see him as passionate for his kingdom, but then he finally realized at the end that it was better to let it go.

Obsession is technically a form of insanity, especially given thousands of years or whatever. If he were in Japan, the moment he started talking about reviving his dead kingdom and started calling another girl by his daughter's name and dressing her up like his daughter, people will get really concerned about him even if we give the benefit of the doubt of everyone knowing he's telling the truth like we and Link do.

Could you show me where I can find the translated GBA ALTTP Japanese manual? I can't seem to find any post on the Translation's thread. I assume someone has done it already, I just can't find it. I've been curious on how different it was from the English version.

Heh, you're asking the wrong guy. I never keep track of the locations of translations and text dumps. >_>;;;;

The thing is, I don't think they really changed their mind about AOL's Sleeping zelda story (based on the reasons I said before [noted in the spoiler]), I just think that they didn't do a good job on consistency. That is different than retconning the "OOT is seal war" based on a clear indication in the games to make that connection impossible.

Well, here we hit a snag, because I stopped considering OOT as the Seal War like a month after I played it when I realized it doesn't fit the role whatsoever. I turned out to be right, so nener nener.

Anyway, if there's an inconsistency that just doesn't work, then I consider Creator Intent to be broken in that instance. Otherwise the timeline would be a lot weirder.

Let me know when he does; right now, he's just making new stories that fit together well, and managed to link to LTTP, but not much else. How's he connecting the FS games? The original games? Oracles?

They had a background story? Never realized...was it in the manual?

That whole thing about being from Brooklyn and slipping into the Mushroom Kingdom from the sewers was canonical until Yoshi's Island said they were babies delivered by the stork to Mushroom Kingdom parents.

Those are two entirely different situations. The only things that connected ALTTP to LOZ/AOL was the back of the box and the Japanese ALTTP manual in the first sentence that says that it sets the stage for Hyrule. Both of these are removed in the GBA remake (Except I'm not sure about Japanese GBA ALTTP manual, as I haven't looked at it yet). The "OOT is Seal war" is broken by lots of in-game evidence, not just a mere two references (that seemed to have been removed later on).

Well then Sleeping Zelda is LOZ Zelda because the remake of AOL fails to mention that it was a Zelda from earlier history.

[Erimgard]

I personally don't agree with it, but if the Sleeping Zelda has to be one on screen, she's the only one that works.

Well what I meant is how do you justify her not being the start of anything of she's called a founder/first generation?

[Jarsh]

I personally don't agree with it, but if the Sleeping Zelda has to be one on screen, she's the only one that works.

Well what I meant is how do you justify her not being the start of anything of she's called a founder/first generation?

Question: Does the Japanese GBA Classic Series manual still say that she is the first generation Zelda? I apologize if this is already common knowledge, but I couldn't find a translation on Zelda Legends.

[Erimgard]

Yes.
The original SNES manual, and the latest release for GBA both call her the "Shodai" Zelda, meaning first generation or founder. Only in the Japanese though.

[Average Gamer]

She could be the founder of the naming tradition, though that'd be rather obvious and possibly strange to mention before Impa tells the legend.

Edited by Average Gamer, 08 July 2009 - 05:16 PM.

[bjamez7573]

Average Gamer, what do you mean by "founder of the naming tradition?" wouldn't that mean she is intended to be first?

Edit: Never mind, I figured it out

If the release of the Japanese GBA Adventure of Link still mentions the zelda as the first generation, which they could have edited if they intended to change the meaning of the sleeping zelda story, then it seems like more of an indication that the story is to remain intact and it is the creator intent years ago that changes. Then again, maybe they were lazy and didn't care about changing it. Although they did make changes to ALTTP when they ported it.

Does anyone know if the Japanese GBA manual story for AOL has been translated on this forum or on Zelda Legends?

Anyway, if there's an inconsistency that just doesn't work, then I consider Creator Intent to be broken in that instance. Otherwise the timeline would be a lot weirder.

This is exactly why I place LOZ/AOL before OOT - because there is an inconsistency in the storyline

I do agree that LOZ/AOL was originally intended to be after ALTTP in that time-period

Edited by bjamez7573, 08 July 2009 - 06:32 PM.

[Erimgard]

KJ Contrarian (a member at this site, ZU, and ZI) bought a copy of the Japanese GBA Adventure of Link, including the manual. He gave it to a friend of his who is fluent in Japanese (but doesn't play Zelda) and then gave him the text from the original NES manual. His friend said there was virtually no difference in the text (including the line about the Sleeping Zelda).

[MikePetersSucks]

Well what I meant is how do you justify her not being the start of anything of she's called a founder/first generation?

Being the founder of the naming tradition requiring all princesses to be named Zelda is not the same as being the first Princess of Destiny, Zelda. Hypothetically, it could go:


Zelda > Ophelia > Tricia > Zelda > Diana > Triana > Angelica > Sleeping Zelda > Zelda > Zelda > Zelda.

[Person]

Well what I meant is how do you justify her not being the start of anything of she's called a founder/first generation?

Being the founder of the naming tradition requiring all princesses to be named Zelda is not the same as being the first Princess of Destiny, Zelda. Hypothetically, it could go:


Zelda > Ophelia > Tricia > Zelda > Diana > Triana > Angelica > Sleeping Zelda > Zelda > Zelda > Zelda.

I suppose it could be like that. After all, in English history there were two King Edwards before Edward I came along.

[bjamez7573]

It could, but all of the princesses are named Zelda, so it still seems likely that the explanation is given by that story in AOL (therefore, it needs to be first in the timeline). To have all of the princesses named Zelda in every game, have a story behind that would explain that, but yet not use it? It doesn't seem like the creators would just throw away something like that unless they are doing away with the NES games entirely. Having 4 Zelda's before the naming tradition starts? that's seems a bit much to me.

Edited by bjamez7573, 09 July 2009 - 07:29 PM.

[Jarsh]

Well what I meant is how do you justify her not being the start of anything of she's called a founder/first generation?

Being the founder of the naming tradition requiring all princesses to be named Zelda is not the same as being the first Princess of Destiny, Zelda. Hypothetically, it could go:


Zelda > Ophelia > Tricia > Zelda > Diana > Triana > Angelica > Sleeping Zelda > Zelda > Zelda > Zelda.

OH WOW. I never thought of it this way. Thanks, MPS, that actually makes a legitimate amount of sense.

[MikePetersSucks]

It could, but all of the princesses are named Zelda, so it still seems likely that the explanation is given by that story in AOL (therefore, it needs to be first in the timeline).

We never meet every Zelda who's ever lived in the history of Hyrule or anything. Outside of AOL, other games seem to imply that only the destined Princess of Destiny is called Zelda, just like only the Hero is named Link. Therefore, the AOL naming tradition would be the point where the name is forced unto non-destined Princesses, like the useless bimbo in LOZ.

To have OOT be the Imprisoning War game, have a story and plot connections that would explain that, but yet not use it? It doesn't seem like the creators would just throw away something like that unless they are doing away with OOT entirely.

There's not a single argument you can make that haven't been used for other retcons.

[bjamez7573]

We never meet every Zelda who's ever lived in the history of Hyrule or anything. Outside of AOL, other games seem to imply that only the destined Princess of Destiny is called Zelda, just like only the Hero is named Link. Therefore, the AOL naming tradition would be the point where the name is forced unto non-destined Princesses, like the useless bimbo in LOZ.

Why would the creator's have this established reason for naming all of the female royalty Zelda, yet all of the Princess of Destiny Zelda's are named the same just by coincidence? We only see the Princess of Destiny in the game - we really don't know what the other - if there are others - princesses are called. We will probably never know what their female royalty is called because they will not be mentioned in the game unless they are a minor character. So we have this story, yet it doesn't get to be used for the characters that we see, only for the ones that we don't. Do you think that creators would think this way when deciding what to retcon? Sure, technically what you are saying is possible, but doesn't seem probable based on the fact that game creators that make story-heavy games like Zelda want the stories to have connections within them that make obvious sense to the player.

Also, LOZ's Zelda wasn't useless - she did protect the Triforce of Wisdom from Ganon's grasp by shattering and hiding it.

To have OOT be the Imprisoning War game, have a story and plot connections that would explain that, but yet not use it? It doesn't seem like the creators would just throw away something like that unless they are doing away with OOT entirely.

There's not a single argument you can make that haven't been used for other retcons.

There are differences between the two
With OOT as the Imprisoning War:

1) The Imprisoning War can stand on its own without having to be explained by another game - and there is an alternative explanation for OOT's significance (other than being the Imprisoning War)
2) OOT did a poor job of explaining the IW (with its inconsistencies and vagueness)
3) The newer games themselves render that interpretation impossible with explicitly clear evidence

With Sleeping Zelda story intact:

1) It can explain something that exists within the games (Every female Royal Family member named Zelda, hence why there is one in every game) that has no alternative explanation
2) The games allow this perfectly - the only things that contradict this are the back of the box of ALTTP (which we know stated something like, "The predecessor's of Link and Zelda", not really adding any story connection) and the reference in the Japanese ALTTP manual (the only thing it said was, "This is the setting for the legend of zelda"; again not explaining any real story connections with it).
3) both references have been removed in the remake, the sleeping zelda story is intact when ported to the GBA, Tetra being named Zelda rather than retaining her name and Anouma's intent to bring all of the stories together more consistently seem to speak of retconning that old placement and retaining the story as it was intended back then (which means its only logical place near the beginning and before OOT).

There are definite reasons to not use OOT as the Imprisoning War, but there is no reason to not use the sleeping zelda story that explains the naming of Zelda's in the other games when there is no contradictions with the other games. Its either use that story, or the princesses are named by coincidence.

[MikePetersSucks]

Why would the creator's have this established reason for naming all of the female royalty Zelda, yet all of the Princess of Destiny Zelda's are named the same just by coincidence? We only see the Princess of Destiny in the game - we really don't know what the other - if there are others - princesses are called. We will probably never know what their female royalty is called because they will not be mentioned in the game unless they are a minor character.

You make it sound like they never plan to show us the Royal Family's other members, ever. We've seen a few kings, and a few pictures of some queens. It's only a matter of time before one actually plays a role.

Also, I can flip this around back on the Imprisoning War argument.

So we have this story, yet it doesn't get to be used for the characters that we see, only for the ones that we don't. Do you think that creators would think this way when deciding what to retcon? Sure, technically what you are saying is possible, but doesn't seem probable based on the fact that game creators that make story-heavy games like Zelda want the stories to have connections within them that make obvious sense to the player.

And yet retcons are made for much bigger, on-screen details that have large consequences for offscreen deals, not to mention there's no fucking way they knew what they'd do with this series ahead of time, and the developers have explicitly said that when they make a game they only take the past games into consideration pretty much as an afterthought.

also lol @ Zelda being story-heavy. That's such a naive statement.

Also, LOZ's Zelda wasn't useless - she did protect the Triforce of Wisdom from Ganon's grasp by shattering and hiding it.

Yea, and I bet a proper Princess of Destiny could've done a better job of it.

With Sleeping Zelda story intact:

1) It can explain something that exists within the games (Every female Royal Family member named Zelda, hence why there is one in every game) that has no alternative explanation
2) The games allow this perfectly - the only things that contradict this are the back of the box of ALTTP (which we know stated something like, "The predecessor's of Link and Zelda", not really adding any story connection) and the reference in the Japanese ALTTP manual (the only thing it said was, "This is the setting for the legend of zelda"; again not explaining any real story connections with it).
3) both references have been removed in the remake, the sleeping zelda story is intact when ported to the GBA, Tetra being named Zelda rather than retaining her name and Anouma's intent to bring all of the stories together more consistently seem to speak of retconning that old placement and retaining the story as it was intended back then (which means its only logical place near the beginning and before OOT).

1) Zelda can keep being Zelda for the same reason Link, Malon, Tingle, and Impa don't have continuous naming traditions in their families because of some curse.
2) The Triforce placement and other such factors also pose a problem. The "Sleeping Zelda first" thing only works if you put LOZ/AOL before OOT, which is against creator intent and requires an assload of fanfic.
3) The Sleeping Zelda story as ported to GBA failed to mention that the Sleeping Zelda is an old-ass bitch from centuries ago instead of the broad Link saved already.
4) Is dressing someone up to look like your daughter and deliberately putting them in unnecessary ineffectualness and harm's way part of the naming tradition, too? Because Daphnes is fucking crazy.

[bjamez7573]

You make it sound like they never plan to show us the Royal Family's other members, ever. We've seen a few kings, and a few pictures of some queens. It's only a matter of time before one actually plays a role.

I don't mean to say they won't ever show them, but since they haven't yet, we will not know what their names are. Let's hope they do and maybe we will get some confirmation on this issue.

Also, I can flip this around back on the Imprisoning War argument.

Let's hear it, then

And yet retcons are made for much bigger, on-screen details that have large consequences for offscreen deals, not to mention there's no fucking way they knew what they'd do with this series ahead of time, and the developers have explicitly said that when they make a game they only take the past games into consideration pretty much as an afterthought.

Seeing as how I haven't been into timeline theorizing nearly as long as some on this forum, can you provide examples so I can understand what you are talking about? As far as Zelda goes, I've only heard of 2: OOT as the Imprisoning War and the Sleeping Zelda theory.

You're right, they didn't know what they are going to do with the future games, but that doesn't mean they are ignoring the old games and their stories. They can fix the this part of the story without affecting the rest of it and all they would have to do is retcon their original quotes about it being post-ALTTP. Are quotes about this statement so prevalent (like with the split timeline quotes) that abandoning them for favor of the AOL backstory shouldn't be considered?

also lol @ Zelda being story-heavy. That's such a naive statement.

Regardless, you understood what I meant, right? I was talking about games where stories play an important enough role to make connections within 2 or more separate games in a series.

Yea, and I bet a proper Princess of Destiny could've done a better job of it.

I think she did what she could - obviously she was captured, what else could she have done? Its not like OOT Zelda that escaped. Regardless, our judgement on that shouldn't be used as evidence - you're attempting to separate her from other Zeldas based on your judgement rather than game evidence that either explicitly says so or implies it.

1) Zelda can keep being Zelda for the same reason Link, Malon, Tingle, and Impa don't have continuous naming traditions in their families because of some curse.

Yes, I agree on that. But there is a story to explain it - unlike the others which are forced to be there just on coincidence (just a side note:Malon, Tingle and Impa are minor characters and they don't need an explanation. You can name the Hero in every game but the NES games and FSA. Link is only an arbritary name to represent the Hero - his actual story name is created by the player)

2) The Triforce placement and other such factors also pose a problem. The "Sleeping Zelda first" thing only works if you put LOZ/AOL before OOT, which is against creator intent and requires an assload of fanfic.

Pose a problem, HOW? How is it any different than LOZ post-ALTTP? The fact is, the King used the Triforce to rule - It doesn't matter how he got it or what happened before - he has it and that is a fact. So, with a post-ALTTP placement, how does it go from Link's hands to the King who rules? We don't know. You need logical speculation. Again, with a pre-OOT placement, how does the Triforce go from Link's hands back into the Sacred Realm where the entrance is protected? We don't know. We need logical speculation here, too. Please explain why you need an "assload of fanfic" for it to work that isn't any different from a post-ALTTP placement.

Edit: I already mentioned how that creator intent is questionable: its OLD and the references that indicated creator intent have been removed in the remake - indicating newer creator intent to break that connection.

3) The Sleeping Zelda story as ported to GBA failed to mention that the Sleeping Zelda is an old-ass bitch from centuries ago instead of the broad Link saved already.

The Japanese still mentions her as the "first generation/founder Zelda" and is directly implied that it is the one from long ago

4) Is dressing someone up to look like your daughter and deliberately putting them in unnecessary ineffectualness and harm's way part of the naming tradition, too? Because Daphnes is fucking crazy.

Edit: I must have not read this quite right - I was in hurry when I wrote it.

Anyway, every Zelda has that dress, its traditional to use that for royality. He is not necessarily dressing her like his daughter, he could also (and more likely) be dressing her according to royal tradition as he tells her of her origins. Ineffectualness? What was she going to do, fight Ganondorf (which she did help with at the end)? Harm's way? He thought that hiding her down there would be there best chance of keeping Tetra from Ganondorf's grasp. It sounded to me like no matter where she went, it would only be a matter of time before Ganondorf found Tetra. Not to mention that the whole object was to keep Ganondorf from acquiring the more Triforce pieces. This would have been the same whether Daphnes was attached to the past or not. I don't see how you can just conclude that Daphnes is "crazy" and therefore naming Tetra 'Zelda' is not a reference to AOL's backstory. The fact that he is "crazy" is your intrepretation - the game does not imply that.

Edited by bjamez7573, 20 July 2009 - 08:37 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I'll get to most of these later and/or give someone else a chance to speak in this discussion, since I'm pressed for time, but:

You can name the Hero in every game but the NES games and FSA. Link is only an arbritary name to represent the Hero - his actual story name is created by the player)

There's games in which you can't choose Link's name, and he's Link no matter what the hell you think. Example? FSA. The naming is to take down the barrier between player and character, but storyline wise, he's objectively Link.

[GuardianNinja]

I always name my save files link haha.

I say why should you even have a theory for zelda, as Nintendo owns the franchise and they could change a number of aspects at anytime, just think the moment you figure out something new, a brand new zelda game will just contradict it. The only theory should be to just play the games and dont give it much thought.

[Sir Turtlelot]

I always name my save files link haha.

I say why should you even have a theory for zelda, as Nintendo owns the franchise and they could change a number of aspects at anytime, just think the moment you figure out something new, a brand new zelda game will just contradict it. The only theory should be to just play the games and dont give it much thought.

With every new release there's always a chance of something being contradicted, hell that's what this debate is about. Theorizing is just something to do in your spare time, and is usually done by someone who wants to know the official and/or possible order of the games.

[GuardianNinja]

And for years, how much information has been given out on a 'time line', perhaps they never intended on one?

[MikePetersSucks]

Of course they didn't at first. But there are games which are sequels to each other and, regardless of how bad it'll end up being, they're trying to make a timeline. Anyway, if you're not going to contribute and just going to give a tired "There is no timeline lolol what's the point?" Please take your business elsewhere.

[bjamez7573]

I always name my save files link haha.

I say why should you even have a theory for zelda, as Nintendo owns the franchise and they could change a number of aspects at anytime, just think the moment you figure out something new, a brand new zelda game will just contradict it. The only theory should be to just play the games and dont give it much thought.

But theorizing is so much fun! I love these debates on finding the best possible/official order of the games. Its fun getting into all the details, even though I am serious about it. I would guess that's why everyone else is here too. Zelda's a great game franchise, why not extend the fun by trying to figure out the story? That's why I get into it.