130 replies to this topic

[Zola Revolution]

OK. I have never bothered going to the Palace of the Four Swords after beating Four Swords because that was not a part of the original Triforce of the Gods. I only have played the version on SNES because they made the sound effects more high-pitched, they added this stupid little voice to Link (He never had that in the first four games), and of course there weren't any last minute add-ins like Palace of the Four Swords. I liked it the way it was. That is probably why I did not know what you were explaining that to me.

I will explore that.

[Raien]

If we can't just say "It's in the game", then how can I determine if anything optional in any a game is canon?

As far as canon is concerned, the fact that characters break the fourth wall means squat to the timeline. There's a difference between game mechanics and an entire dungeon.

Right. You're applying context to present the fact that something in the game is not necessarily canon. I am doing the same, asserting that there's a difference between story-significant content and bonus gameplay content. The fact that the PotFS has no tangible connection to either ALttP or FSA combined with the fact that developers have only ever acknowledged the PotFS having a lack of timeline signifiance, establishes that the PotFS has no timeline significance.

Don't forget that GBA ALTTP Manual is the newest canon and purposely leaves out details of the Imprisoning War (including Ganon). If I remember correctly, the game is quite vague as to how Ganon(dorf) got there.

All the essential details of the Imprisoning War were explained in the game's dialogue, including a Maiden explicitly referring to a human thief Ganondorf enterring the Sacred Realm.

And remember, while dialogue changes and translation fixes were made to the English GBA ALttP, for all we know the Japanese GBA game is identical to the SNES game. The idea that ALttP's story was changed for the GBA release is highly unlikely.

It may not be. Remember in the beginning of FSA when Zelda must open the portal to the Four Sword Sanctuary? This is very possibly an entrance to the Sacred Realm in the very same place PotFS is in GBA ALTTP.

What rubbish! Zelda's portal was merely a shortcut to reaching the hidden Four Sword Sanctuary, to which Link was later able to reach on foot. There's no hint or suggestion that the Sacred Realm could be involved whatsoever.

This is not speculation. This is a theory backed by evidence that I think has been overlooked by too many people. The Sleeping Zelda theory is Canon that can't be ignored in determining LOZ/AOL's placement. Everyone says it's retconned but there is no good evidence to support this.

Oh god, you're a Lex-disciple. Never mind then.

Edited by Raien, 27 August 2009 - 07:10 PM.

[ganonlord6000]

OK. I have never bothered going to the Palace of the Four Swords after beating Four Swords because that was not a part of the original Triforce of the Gods. I only have played the version on SNES because they made the sound effects more high-pitched, they added this stupid little voice to Link (He never had that in the first four games), and of course there weren't any last minute add-ins like Palace of the Four Swords. I liked it the way it was. That is probably why I did not know what you were explaining that to me.

I will explore that.

The SNES version of LTTP/TOTG (you'll almost never see me call ALTTP TOTG) isn't canon anymore as the GBA remake replaces it. That and it is definatly the canon version in the US. And I agree with all of you who say that the POTFS isn't canon as it was a gameplay feature. It would be nice if it was canon though as it would help those of us who place FSA before ALTTP. You should try the POTFS eventually though as it is a challenging dungeon that makes up for the toned down difficulty in the GBA version of ALTTP and it is pretty interesting.

[Zola Revolution]

As I stated earlier, I will explore it. In fact, as I am typing this, I am on my way to the location of Palace of the Four Swords.

Yes, personally; I like the title Triforce of the Gods better because A Link to the Past sounds like a pathetic attempt at being clever.

Edited by リンクの獰猛な神, 27 August 2009 - 07:28 PM.

[Person]

Triforce of the Gods is certainly a more accurate title, the game is about the Triforce, after all. But blame early 90's-era censorship for that one. NoA wasn't about to release a game with "God" in the title.

But most of us are going to call it A Link to the Past because we played it in English and every version but the Japanese one is called that.

[Impossible]

Okay, I want to see if this works. For the record, everything I state in red is the truth.

The Master Sword in OoX is unconnected to the story, and not obtained through the natural progression of story events. It is received through one of several inconsistent methods that contradicts the actual nature of the sword, its history, and who can hold it. In one instance, it is shown to merely be a reforged version of your existing sword. It also involves the somewhat fourth wall breaking event of travelling back and forth between the two lands, which is never implied to occur in the story.
Hence, I propose the following: The Master Sword is an Easter egg completely outside of the story, and is simply using that name as a nod to the series.

I don't think red text is meant to be used in that way... More like a red paragraph, which defeats the fun of it.

Edited by Impossible, 28 August 2009 - 04:16 AM.

[joeymartin64]

PotFS is one of those things that's going to differ based on other things in any given person's timeline. If considering it canon helps out your timeline, slinky. If it's not unnecessary or harmful, ignore it. Problem solved. Someone could probably start a whole thread about that, but that might not be necessary, what with the topic at hand here being pretty overwhelmingly slanted to one side, with very little going back and forth about it.

[Average Gamer]

Oh god, you're a Lex-disciple. Never mind then.

That's a pretty harsh thing to say to him Raien. It doesn't look justified.

Anyway, for reasons that others (particularly Impossible) have stated, I do not believe that the Master Sword in OoX is canon.

Speaking of the ways to get the Master Sword in OoX, doesn't the Repair Guru constantly slip up and call his ritual a trap? That makes him sound like some sort of scam artist, which further hurts the chances of the OoX Master Sword being canon.

ZU has often claimed that a Zora found the broken sword on the bottom of the ocean, but recently they've said that they've gone back to check the quote and that the Zora instead stated that a swordsman gave him the broken blade. Has anyone on LA looked into this?

[Zola Revolution]

But most of us are going to call it A Link to the Past because we played it in English and every version but the Japanese one is called that.

Yes, I played the game in English, too. I use Triforce of the Gods because:

1) A more accurate title, as you said.

2) Title sounds a lot better in my opinion.

I do know that it is familiarity that causes many in America (and Europe, too I think) to call it A Link to the Past.

Question: Is Four Swords + still a direct sequel to Four Swords?

Edited by リンクの獰猛な神, 28 August 2009 - 07:14 AM.

[Raien]

PotFS is one of those things that's going to differ based on other things in any given person's timeline. If considering it canon helps out your timeline, slinky. If it's not unnecessary or harmful, ignore it. Problem solved. Someone could probably start a whole thread about that, but that might not be necessary, what with the topic at hand here being pretty overwhelmingly slanted to one side, with very little going back and forth about it.

The problem you get with this line of thought is people making the evidence fit the theory, rather than making the theory fit the evidence. When all the evidence suggests that the PotFS does not connect FSA to ALttP, people wanting that connection to exist does not magically make it true.

That's a pretty harsh thing to say to him Raien. It doesn't look justified.

It's not justified, but I am absolutely done with debating Lex theories. I refuse to debate with someone who actively twists evidence to suit their agenda.

[Zola Revolution]

When all the evidence suggests that the PotFS does not connect FSA to ALttP, people wanting that connection to exist does not magically make it true.

I agree with this statement.

[Masamune]

In any case, I'd like to see the quote where PotFS is declared non-canon. It probably won't make much of a difference (after all, it's officially used in the triangular timeline and thus 100% canon), but it'd be good to see anyways.

[Raien]

In any case, I'd like to see the quote where PotFS is declared non-canon. It probably won't make much of a difference (after all, it's officially used in the triangular timeline and thus 100% canon), but it'd be good to see anyways.

I'm not in the mood to go quote-hunting anymore, but I can tell you that it was an interview about TMC, in which the game's director (from Flagship studios) said that the team never had any intent on connecting the Four Swords games to the "main series games". Naturally this incorporates the PotFS.

[Masamune]

So.... wouldn't the context of that statement be saying that the whole Four Swords series isn't canon? I mean, sure, I can see how you could stretch the idea of that to say ONLY the PotFS isn't canon, but that seems more like grasping at straws than what I've been doing. If we're to take this all at face value, then shouldn't we just not bother putting TMC/FS/FSA in our timelines at all?

In any case, Four Swords Adventures was created internally and if we take what we are told is true, Aonuma has some vague idea of what the whole timeline is and FSA was very much developed to connect to the other games (in its own lovely headache-inducing way). So while, yes, we can say Four Swords Adventures does exist in this timeline, should we simply say TMC and Four Swords didn't happen? They're not supposed to be main series games, so there's no point even talking about them at all, even if they contribute significantly to the mythos.

[Raien]

So.... wouldn't the context of that statement be saying that the whole Four Swords series isn't canon? I mean, sure, I can see how you could stretch the idea of that to say ONLY the PotFS isn't canon, but that seems more like grasping at straws than what I've been doing. If we're to take this all at face value, then shouldn't we just not bother putting TMC/FS/FSA in our timelines at all?

The statement does indeed indicate that the FS trilogy has nothing to do with the rest of the timeline, and that is why I keep it separate in my timeline until Nintendo sees fit to make a proper connection.

In any case, Four Swords Adventures was created internally and if we take what we are told is true, Aonuma has some vague idea of what the whole timeline is and FSA was very much developed to connect to the other games (in its own lovely headache-inducing way). So while, yes, we can say Four Swords Adventures does exist in this timeline, should we simply say TMC and Four Swords didn't happen? They're not supposed to be main series games, so there's no point even talking about them at all, even if they contribute significantly to the mythos.

I heave heard that removed text from FSA does indeed suggest that the game replaces the original IW, but FSA's ending was changed late in development (according to one of FSA's developers), and let's face it, FSA's ending does not connect to ALttP. As of now, FSA does not connect to ALttP and there is no general connection between the FS trilogy and the main series games.

[Masamune]

So why bother chastising me about the canonicity of the Palace of the Four Sword when including the Four Swords trilogy would be even more egregious?

[Raien]

So why bother chastising me about the canonicity of the Palace of the Four Sword when including the Four Swords trilogy would be even more egregious?

The Four Swords Trilogy is part of the timeline, it's just not connected to the main series games. The PotFS is a separate issue because it doesn't connect FSA to ALttP as you said it did, so I refuted it.

Edited by Raien, 28 August 2009 - 11:09 AM.

[Impossible]

Anyway, for reasons that others (particularly Impossible) have stated, I do not believe that the Master Sword in OoX is canon.

I wouldn't point to me, though. Almost nothing I post at the moment should be taken seriously. I'm kind of not in timeline theorising mode at the moment. Which normally means I don't post, but since I'm randomly showing up to post at times, I'll just spout out whatever things I can vaguely remember, whether they make sense or not.

PotFS is one of those things that's going to differ based on other things in any given person's timeline. If considering it canon helps out your timeline, slinky. If it's not unnecessary or harmful, ignore it. Problem solved. Someone could probably start a whole thread about that, but that might not be necessary, what with the topic at hand here being pretty overwhelmingly slanted to one side, with very little going back and forth about it.

I wanted to say why this is stupid, but Raien beat me to it. Since it's so fucking stupid, though, it bears saying twice. This is the exact kind of mentality that leads to horrible timelines and communities with horrible timeline theorising standards. What kind of fucked up field of debate allows for evidence to be assessed AFTER deciding on a theory, or judged selectively based on someone's preferred theory? Either evidence is good/valid/significant/existent/canon or it's not, you don't decide based on your own biases how it should be treated. If you're going to go off and live in your own world with your own rules like that, why bother discussing the timeline with others? You aren't working towards any kind of common end. It just creates shitstorm after shitstorm due to dozens of people all living inside their own twisted worlds and working towards their own objectives, basing their entire perception of evidence around what they want to be true.

In other words, ZU. Of course, no other place where the Zelda timeline is debated is innocent of this either... Funny how low a standard we have as a debating community. Is that what we get for having serious business debates about the chronology of video games?

[Zola Revolution]

Speaking of MFT, I was going about my split timeline all wrong... Ahh, there we go. \/

[Sir Turtlelot]

I'm going to go ahead and put this disclaimer up so I hopefully don't get flamed.

Everything I am about say is nothing more than an idea, I am NOT claiming it to be canon.

With that said... If the FS trilogy is not meant to interact with the main series, would it be possible to place it on the end of the AT by itself.

And... If the remakes of the older games considered canon, since LoZ & AoL were not changed and ALttP was, if the statement from the original ALttP's back of the box is not included in the remake, what reasons would go against placing LoZ & AoL at the beginning of the timeline to preserve the Sleeping Zelda Legend?

Edited by Sir Turtlelot, 28 August 2009 - 12:03 PM.

[Raien]

With that said... If the FS trilogy is not meant to interact with the main series, would it be possible to place it on the end of the AT by itself?

No, because a revival of Hyrule from the floodwaters makes no logical sense and contradicts TWW's ending.

And... If the remakes of the older games considered canon, since LoZ & AoL were not changed and ALttP was, if the statement from the original ALttP's back of the box is not included in the remake, what reasons would go against placing LoZ & AoL at the beginning of the timeline to preserve the Sleeping Zelda Legend?

Do you really think that if Nintendo was asked, "what establishes ALttP's connection to LoZ?", that they would actually say "The back of the box"? Seriously, why do you assume the change of box text (which, btw, would not have been done for timeline purposes in the first place) magically changes ALttP's placement when Nintendo changed nothing of ALttP's story?

ALttP is a prequel game to LoZ. It established the origin of Hyrule, the origin of the Triforce, and the origin of the Demon King Ganon. The Sleeping Zelda legend was retconned the moment Nintendo decided that there should be a Princess Zelda before the Sleeping Zelda, and absolutely nothing about that has changed since. And as for placing LoZ-AoL at the beginning of the timeline, it breaks the consistency of the Triforce's hidden location within the Sacred Realm. Once again, your suggestion is a nice idea, but it sounds like you're fitting evidence to the theory.

Edited by Raien, 28 August 2009 - 12:23 PM.

[Masamune]

So why bother chastising me about the canonicity of the Palace of the Four Sword when including the Four Swords trilogy would be even more egregious?

The Four Swords Trilogy is part of the timeline, it's just not connected to the main series games. The PotFS is a separate issue because it doesn't connect FSA to ALttP as you said it did, so I refuted it.

If we acknowledge that the Four Swords trilogy is part of the timeline, then we must also acknowledge the PotFS exists. Because Four Swords is canon to the Zelda timeline (even if we don't know where), then it follows that PotFS is also canon to the Zelda timeline. Following that logic, if we place these Four Swords games in the timeline, regardless of where we put them, we still have the PotFS existing at the time of ALttP. So while we might speculate, for instance, how the Temple of Time was covered over by forest by the time of Twilight Princess, or how the Master Sword was moved into the palace basement in The Wind Waker, we might also speculate about the movement of the Four Sword, across all the games it appears in. We might wonder what happened to all the people in The Legend of Zelda and why Hyrule has moved further north. There's no canon explanation for these things, but we can make guesses and assumptions, since it should seem fairly obvious that it's never going to be explained to us.

So ultimately, if you come up with a timeline (and there's no timeline that doesn't contradict canon), you are ultimately left with certain threads that are unresolved. There's nothing wrong with speculating on why things changed the way they did. So yes, the PotFS might not connect to FSA. But it DOES connect to the Four Sword. If you are to take the approach that TMC-FS-FSA happens long before OoT (as Aonuma has suggested), then what Link finds in ALttP might just be a curious, ancient relic. The PotFS offers no implication of anything save for that The Minish Cap must come before A Link to the Past, because The Minish Cap chronicles the creation of the Four Sword. So if I do say that FSA happened long ago, before even OoT, I might simply say that the Four Sword ended up in the Sacred Realm long ago, after Ganon's escape. Were I to speculate that FS/FSA happened after ALttP, it might also be suggested that after The Minish Cap, the Four Sword was kept in the Sacred Realm for safekeeping, until Link brought ti back for safekeeping.

Just because there's not a canon connection between games doesn't mean an explanation can't be made. If we accept that there is any kind of timeline, then there are plot holes that go unanswered. I'm of the opinion that there's nothing wrong with explaining away these plot holes, just as long as we don't make the mistake of thinking our explanations are canonical or infallible.

Edited by Masamune, 28 August 2009 - 12:22 PM.

[Raien]

If we acknowledge that the Four Swords trilogy is part of the timeline, then we must also acknowledge the PotFS exists. Because Four Swords is canon to the Zelda timeline (even if we don't know where), then it follows that PotFS is also canon to the Zelda timeline.

No, it doesn't. Four Swords is a full story that Nintendo has confirmed to be a part of the Zelda mythology. PotFS is a random bonus dungeon that Nintendo included to encourage connectivity, and has no tangible story connections to either ALttP or FS. It's just randomly there without explanation.

This is absolutely nothing like the Master Sword moving from the Temple of Time to the basement of Hyrule Castle, because in both games the Master Sword has storyline significance. What it is like, however, is the Master Sword moving from the Lost Woods to an old man's house in Oracles, where the latter has no storyline significance.

Edited by Raien, 28 August 2009 - 12:29 PM.

[Masamune]

It's in the game! That's ALL the justification you need. It's not even that complicated of a concept. It doesn't make one iota of a difference if it has any storyline significance to the game at hand. The Zelda games are FULL of passing references to things that are irrelevant to the storyline. The Gossip Stones tell us that the Gerudos find boyfriends in Hyrule Market. This has absolutely no impact on the storyline of Ocarina of Time and yet never once has anyone ever attempted to refute any information provided to us via the Gossip Stones. As I see it, there's no justification for it not being canon and I've had this very same discussion when it comes to things like the Tingle games. It happened, it's in the game, and that takes relevance over anything else.

[Person]

Anyway, for reasons that others (particularly Impossible) have stated, I do not believe that the Master Sword in OoX is canon.

I wouldn't point to me, though. Almost nothing I post at the moment should be taken seriously. I'm kind of not in timeline theorising mode at the moment. Which normally means I don't post, but since I'm randomly showing up to post at times, I'll just spout out whatever things I can vaguely remember, whether they make sense or not.

PotFS is one of those things that's going to differ based on other things in any given person's timeline. If considering it canon helps out your timeline, slinky. If it's not unnecessary or harmful, ignore it. Problem solved. Someone could probably start a whole thread about that, but that might not be necessary, what with the topic at hand here being pretty overwhelmingly slanted to one side, with very little going back and forth about it.

I wanted to say why this is stupid, but Raien beat me to it. Since it's so fucking stupid, though, it bears saying twice. This is the exact kind of mentality that leads to horrible timelines and communities with horrible timeline theorising standards. What kind of fucked up field of debate allows for evidence to be assessed AFTER deciding on a theory, or judged selectively based on someone's preferred theory? Either evidence is good/valid/significant/existent/canon or it's not, you don't decide based on your own biases how it should be treated. If you're going to go off and live in your own world with your own rules like that, why bother discussing the timeline with others? You aren't working towards any kind of common end. It just creates shitstorm after shitstorm due to dozens of people all living inside their own twisted worlds and working towards their own objectives, basing their entire perception of evidence around what they want to be true.

In other words, ZU. Of course, no other place where the Zelda timeline is debated is innocent of this either... Funny how low a standard we have as a debating community. Is that what we get for having serious business debates about the chronology of video games?

It would be one thing to put FSA before ALttP if PotFS was the only evidence we had. But we have more than just that. If FSA is before ALttP (as Masamune and I believe) what we're doing is merely speculating "how'd that thing get there" not "the entire timeline hinges on this minor insignificant detail." It's sort of like people speculating on how the Hylian language evolved or geography or whatever.

[Raien]

It's in the game! That's ALL the justification you need.

We've had this discussion. Characters talking about the "A button" are in the games, but as you said, not everything in the game pertains to the mythology. Likewise, bonus dungeons that exist for gameplay do not possess storyline significance, and therefore are not part of the canon.

The Gossip Stones tell us that the Gerudos find boyfriends in Hyrule Market. This has absolutely no impact on the storyline of Ocarina of Time and yet never once has anyone ever attempted to refute any information provided to us via the Gossip Stones.

That's because it's called "backstory"; it pertains to the Zelda mythology. Gameplay content or mechanics do not, and are thusly not canon.

[Masamune]

Well, since we both seem to be reiterating the same points, I don't think this warrants further discussion. We have different ideas on establishing canon. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, so let's leave it at that. There's no sense beating a dead horse, since we're only going in circles here.

Edited by Masamune, 28 August 2009 - 12:46 PM.

[Raien]

Well, since we both seem to be reiterating the same points, I don't think this warrants further discussion. We have different ideas on establishing canon. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, so let's leave it at that. There's no sense beating a dead horse, since we're only going in circles here.

Beating the dead horse or not, I still don't understand how you can use "It's in the game" as justification when you yourself refuse to accept it. If a dungeon exists purely to bump up gameplay, and not to develop the Zelda mythology, then how is that any different from characters referring to the A button?

It's just one question that I would like to see answered, as I don't have anything else to say otherwise.

Edited by Raien, 28 August 2009 - 12:56 PM.

[Masamune]

The difference, as I said before, is that referring to the A button is fourth wall breaking that is poorly executed, whereas a dungeon is actual content in the game. But a character referring to the "A Button" is unlikely to have any relevance, unless you want to make a theory that certain characters are aware they're in a game (Hey, Deadpool), but a bonus dungeon that actually contains a recurring item from the Zelda series is likely to have relevance. The Color Dungeon in LADX is the same, but the only difference is that there's nothing in the Color Dungeon that will ultimately have relevance. I still think it's canon, even if I don't use it. The only exceptions I'd really make are the Second Quest in LoZ and Master Quest in OoT, if only because they're contradictory to the original games.

The difference here is that I take a broader approach to canon than you do. I've always been that way, since I used to spend a lot of time working on a Zelda encyclopedia. I simply don't dismiss anything. I take what I'm given and I work with it.

[Raien]

That's a fair enough response. I think we can safely end it there.