130 replies to this topic

[Raien]

I ran into a 'book' or something of his timeline while quote hunting yesterday. I should have looked at it some more. Oh well.

Who's timeline? Mine, Lex or someone else?

[Masamune]

Lex's timeline, sorry. It was on one of those sites that present articles in book format, through Flash I think (and not pdf).

[bjamez7573]

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 entering 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.

You're right. I had thought that those details were left out, but after looking it up, I was wrong. But whether it was Ganondorf or Ganon, their the same person, so it really doesn't matter that Ganon was sealed in the Four Sword and it was Ganondorf who rediscovered the Sacred Realm.

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.

Its been a while since I played FSA, I had forgotten that detail. I looked it up and you were right. This kind of makes theorizing with the PotFS kind of useless, because Ganon had to escape in order for FSA-ALTTP placement to work, and what he does with the Four Sword doesn't really matter. So whether you consider it Canon or not, it's not going to affect the timeline that much.

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.

Let's not forget who was in charge during ALTTP development - Miyamoto. Do you really think he gave that much thought to connectivity between ALTTP and LOZ? Can you show me evidence that ALTTP was supposed to explain the origins of LOZ's Ganon? (that is a determining factor in placing ALTTP as a prequel, telling Hyrule's and Triforce's history does not matter) Miyamoto does not care about the timeline or how the games connect, only how the story will enhance gameplay. If he really cared, he would have put more into the game that clearly references LOZ Ganon. But he does not.

Anouma obviously cares about storyline consistency. His vision is to bring the "stories together, and make them a little more clear." Putting LOZ-AOL pre-OOT solves the problem with the Sleeping Zelda without creating any others. This fits Anouma's vision. The thing is, if Sleeping Zelda story was retconned, then why does the Manual for the Classic series AOL still contain the same story, with the Japanese clearly calling the Sleeping Zelda, "First Generation"? If they had wanted to change it, then they would have changed the manual to correct for this.

How does putting LOZ-AOL at the beginning break the consistency of Triforce's hidden location? In OOT, the Triforce was not hidden. The Royal Family knew exactly where it was and how to get it. It was just hidden from everyone else.

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.

Chill out man. His statement doesn't put him near Lex's level.

Thank you Average Gamer. What's the deal, Raien? I'm not Lex. And I hope from my other responses that you see that I do pay attention to the evidence and it is used to form my theory, not the other way around. Please don't assume you know me when you haven't debated with me before.

Edited by bjamez7573, 29 August 2009 - 12:13 PM.

[Jarsh]

Putting LOZ-AOL pre-OOT solves the problem with the Sleeping Zelda without creating any others. This fits Anouma's vision.

NP: What was the impetus for creating the game’s multiple races–Gorons, Zoras, the Gerudo, Kokiri, etc.–and what was the process like for creating them?

EA: In creating a unique cast of characters, we thought it would be effective to have nonhuman races, each of them invested with different lifestyles and mannerisms. Almost from the beginning we had decided on Kokiri to live in the forests, Gorons to live in the mountains, and Zoras to live in the water.

At first we imagined the Zoras as monsters sort of like mermen who would be antagonists to humans. The original concept was strong. However, after we had decided Princess Ruto was going to be one of the sages, that image didn’t seem to fit anymore, so we changed them to be a friendly more like humans.

Each of the races has a character fated to become one of the sages later on. We named them after towns in The Adventure of Link so it would appear that the towns had been named after them. (In the world of Zelda, the events of Ocarina of Time occur before the events of The Adventure of Link.)

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't see how placing LoZ/AoL before OoT fits Aonuma's vision at all.

[Person]

he problem is evidence. You're talking about Ganon, who while sealed inside a magical sword, was somehow able to break into the Sacred Realm, which he was never able to do while free. That makes no sense, and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest it's true. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Give me evidence of a connection, and I'll happily accept it to be true. But not before then.

This falls into the realm of speculation, but my idea is that he busted out of the sword and broke it into four pieces so that he wouldn't get sealed in it again, and hid them inside his lair. How does this lack evidence exactly?

[Raien]

You're right. I had thought that those details were left out, but after looking it up, I was wrong. But whether it was Ganondorf or Ganon, their the same person, so it really doesn't matter that Ganon was sealed in the Four Sword and it was Ganondorf who rediscovered the Sacred Realm.

Being the same person does not mean he has the same power or title. The Demon King Ganon is not a thief. The thief Ganondorf is not a Demon King. If a human thief enterred the Sacred Realm, then FSA's Demon King did not.

Let's not forget who was in charge during ALTTP development - Miyamoto. Do you really think he gave that much thought to connectivity between ALTTP and LOZ? Can you show me evidence that ALTTP was supposed to explain the origins of LOZ's Ganon? (that is a determining factor in placing ALTTP as a prequel, telling Hyrule's and Triforce's history does not matter) Miyamoto does not care about the timeline or how the games connect, only how the story will enhance gameplay. If he really cared, he would have put more into the game that clearly references LOZ Ganon. But he does not.

Miyamoto didn't write the games, so it makes no sense to cite him here. In fact, the only rule Miyamoto ever enforced upon Zelda game storylines is that they should not be reliant on previous games (i.e. players should not have to play LoZ to understand ALttP's storyline). Not only does that rule explain the general disconnect between Zelda games, but Aonuma confirmed that he follows the rule himself.

Anouma obviously cares about storyline consistency. His vision is to bring the "stories together, and make them a little more clear." Putting LOZ-AOL pre-OOT solves the problem with the Sleeping Zelda without creating any others. This fits Anouma's vision. The thing is, if Sleeping Zelda story was retconned, then why does the Manual for the Classic series AOL still contain the same story, with the Japanese clearly calling the Sleeping Zelda, "First Generation"? If they had wanted to change it, then they would have changed the manual to correct for this.

Aonuma said he was interested in the timeline. Aonuma didn't say he was prepared to plan retcons for twenty-year old NES titles. If you read the interviews Aonuma has given out recently, he's actually gone on record to say that the timeline isn't important. Now, I've worked out a formula from developer quotes that says Nintendo is only really interested in connecting the latest Zelda game to a single previous game in the series. To this day, no Zelda game has made active connections to more than one previous game; especially not the original NES/SNES titles.

As for the NES Classic series on GBA, the reason why the manual wasn't changed is because the game was just a cheap port, like all the other games in the collection. Ignoring the fact that the current Zelda team had no part in developing the port, Nintendo have never suggested any intent to make those games relevant to the current timeline.

How does putting LOZ-AOL at the beginning break the consistency of Triforce's hidden location? In OOT, the Triforce was not hidden. The Royal Family knew exactly where it was and how to get it. It was just hidden from everyone else.

I'm not saying the placement couldn't work, I'm saying that once again there's no evidence for the transition from the Sacred Realm to the Royal Family and back again. And there's no evidence that Nintendo have bothered with retconning LoZ-AoL's placement either.

Thank you Average Gamer. What's the deal, Raien? I'm not Lex. And I hope from my other responses that you see that I do pay attention to the evidence and it is used to form my theory, not the other way around. Please don't assume you know me when you haven't debated with me before.

If you cite Lex theories, I'm going to assume you got them from Lex. And trust me, you're not saying anything Lex hasn't repeated several times.

This falls into the realm of speculation, but my idea is that he busted out of the sword and broke it into four pieces so that he wouldn't get sealed in it again, and hid them inside his lair. How does this lack evidence exactly?

You just answered your own question.

Edited by Raien, 29 August 2009 - 01:33 PM.

[Zola Revolution]

The names of the towns in AL should have been the first clue in deciding that HF-AL go after OT. That one thing that I started thinking about when I saw posts concerning this. I can kind of see Raien's point about some ideas being thrown out. Like the sleeping Zelda story. However, when I read:

The thing is, if Sleeping Zelda story was retconned, then why does the Manual for the Classic series AOL still contain the same story, with the Japanese clearly calling the Sleeping Zelda, "First Generation"? If they had wanted to change it, then they would have changed the manual to correct for this.

and then look it up, this is true. So I think what Aonuma is doing is reviving old stories that seemed obsolete and making the stories fit by using these revived stories and combining them with the new stories being made.

[joeymartin64]

So, what's wrong with speculation again? As long as the speculator is calling it speculation, what's the big deal? As long as something doesn't contradict the facts, what's wrong with tossing out ideas that seem to fit what facts there are, as long as those ideas aren't put forth as facts?

I mean, there's obviously a matter of degree here. If something is completely ridiculous (like, just to shoot from the hip here, Ganondorf being Link's father or something), I can see a "No, that's unsupported and stupid" response. But if we're not allowed to speculate and posit possibilities at all, what the hell are we allowed to do?

Edited by joeymartin64, 29 August 2009 - 07:43 PM.

[Zola Revolution]

That is what I have been saying; well in a different way. Which is "As long as I don't present unofficial information as fact, it is my theory and it is no more absolute than anyone else's unofficial theory."

Edited by Zola Revolution, 29 August 2009 - 07:40 PM.

[Raien]

So, what's wrong with speculation again? As long as the speculator is calling it speculation, what's the big deal? As long as something doesn't contradict the facts, what's wrong with tossing out ideas that seem to fit what facts there are, as long as those ideas aren't put forth as facts?

If a speculator is calling it speculation and did not contradict the facts, I would have no problem. However, this PotFS argument contradicts the facts. There is absolutely no possible way that Ganon could have broken into the Sacred Realm from within a completely separate prison in Hyrule. And given that a Maiden in ALttP (both versions) recalled that it was a human Ganondorf who enterred the Sacred Realm to take the Triforce (and no, semantic games like "human" being interchangeable with "demon" don't work here), then what you are arguing with the PotFS contradicts the facts.

For the last time, this is not a plausible theory. Even if we were to ignore the Maiden quote, it's always been practically impossible for Ganon to find the Sacred Realm without an additional magical prison to sever his connection to the outside world. Put the PotFS in your timelines if you absolutely must but please don't pretend that it has validity.

Edited by Raien, 29 August 2009 - 09:09 PM.

[Zola Revolution]

[100th reply]

Edited by Zola Revolution, 29 August 2009 - 09:17 PM.

[joeymartin64]

If a speculator is calling it speculation and did not contradict the facts, I would have no problem. However, this PotFS argument contradicts the facts. There is absolutely no possible way that Ganon could have broken into the Sacred Realm from within a completely separate prison in Hyrule. And given that a Maiden in ALttP (both versions) recalled that it was a human Ganondorf who enterred the Sacred Realm to take the Triforce (and no, semantic games like "human" being interchangeable with "demon" don't work here), then what you are arguing with the PotFS contradicts the facts.

Awesome. I'm not kidding. This is the kind of thing I was trying to get out of you, and you've convinced me. I will say, though, I don't recall arguing that connection myself, just asking for clarification against it. No big deal. Also, the idea was that the Four Sword, Ganon sealed in it, was placed in the Sacred Realm, and he broke out of it while there. But, as you pointed out, the Maiden quote renders this impossible.

So, yeah, I agree that the FSA-IW connection is pretty screwed, but I honestly don't see how this completely disqualifies the PotFS itself. It may not connect the two games the way it's been posited, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. But this goes back to the discussion you had with Masa about definitions of canon, which would be pointless to retread.

Even if we were to ignore the Maiden quote, it's always been practically impossible for Ganon to find the Sacred Realm without an additional magical prison to sever his connection to the outside world.

This, however, confounds me. Without an additional magical prison? What does this mean?

Edited by joeymartin64, 29 August 2009 - 09:22 PM.

[Raien]

Even if we were to ignore the Maiden quote, it's always been practically impossible for Ganon to find the Sacred Realm without an additional magical prison to sever his connection to the outside world.

This, however, confounds me. Without an additional magical prison? What does this mean?

Ganon was sealed within the Four Sword; it's a magical prison.

[Zola Revolution]

So,,,Four Swords + goes before OT?

[MikePetersSucks]

How the hell did you reach that conclusion?

[Zola Revolution]

Well I didn't reach that conclusion for that is not my theory. I have been hearing a lot of evidence that FS+ goes before OT. However, to answer your question in full, this is where a discussion is being held about the placement of FS+ before OT (and that there are more than one Ganons).
Here it is...

[bjamez7573]

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't see how placing LoZ/AoL before OoT fits Aonuma's vision at all.

My point here was Anouma's intention, at least according to that interview, is to fix the timeline and make it more clear. If you can keep the original essence of AOL backstory of "The Legend of Zelda" (which is what Impa called "the sleeping zelda story" in the manual) without creating additional plot holes, then that makes the overall story more clear, without changing the meaning of the story. It seems funny to me that Anouma would keep an old placement that has no game connection whatsoever and retcon a story that was possibly the most interesting story part of those original two games (or has any relevance to the timeline as a whole). I am not saying that Anouma wouldn't ever decide to not retcon/change the story, but I think it is more likely that he wouldn't (either that or he would discard the games altogether). However, he hasn't addressed it yet, so its still hard to know.

As far as that interview is concerned, I believe he was talking about the past and what they were thinking back then, before Anouma decided to take the project of fixing the timeline.

Being the same person does not mean he has the same power or title. The Demon King Ganon is not a thief. The thief Ganondorf is not a Demon King. If a human thief enterred the Sacred Realm, then FSA's Demon King did not.

So? Why do you think that the maidens gave it that much thought as to make sure to specify what title he had or much power he had when they were referencing Ganondorf? He can still be referenced as the "Ganondorf, the thief", but have the powers that he had in FSA.

Miyamoto didn't write the games, so it makes no sense to cite him here. In fact, the only rule Miyamoto ever enforced upon Zelda game storylines is that they should not be reliant on previous games (i.e. players should not have to play LoZ to understand ALttP's storyline). Not only does that rule explain the general disconnect between Zelda games, but Aonuma confirmed that he follows the rule himself.

Miyamoto did approve the games and their stories, though.

Ok, I can see that would be his only rule as he doesn't want the story to interfere with gameplay at all, which is the most important to him. But that doesn't mean there has to be no connection at all (From what I remember, their didn't seem to be any connection whatsoever between ALTTP and LOZ-AOL). Just think of WW. Sure, Anouma made the story independent, but he still referenced OOT well enough to conclude a strong sequel (not to mention he said so). Even TP and FSA (with ALTTP) did this even though they weren't quite so clear. If their intention was so clear even to this day, why are the references to LOZ removed in GBA ALTTP? Is there other evidence other than the back of the box text on ALTTP's box and the first line in Japanese SNES ALTTP manual?

Look, I am not saying that, "oh, the creators would never retcon that story since ALTTP as a prequel doesn't make sense" but I think it is more likely. That is why LOZ-AOL come before OOT in my timeline. Either that or he'll discard the games completely from the timeline.

Aonuma said he was interested in the timeline. Aonuma didn't say he was prepared to plan retcons for twenty-year old NES titles. If you read the interviews Aonuma has given out recently, he's actually gone on record to say that the timeline isn't important. Now, I've worked out a formula from developer quotes that says Nintendo is only really interested in connecting the latest Zelda game to a single previous game in the series. To this day, no Zelda game has made active connections to more than one previous game; especially not the original NES/SNES titles.

You're right, he didn't. And as of yet, he hasn't fully addressed the old games. All I am saying is that ALTTP stance as LOZ-AOL's prequel is questionable due to the nature of that placement and the fact that the references to LOZ-AOL are removed in GBA ALTTP. Since game canon is stronger than creator quotes, well, that is why I place them first (after TMC).

Since I am still learning a lot about what evidence is out there, would you happen to have those quotes handy or have links to the websites or something? I would love to see how you came up with your formula.

As for the NES Classic series on GBA, the reason why the manual wasn't changed is because the game was just a cheap port, like all the other games in the collection. Ignoring the fact that the current Zelda team had no part in developing the port, Nintendo have never suggested any intent to make those games relevant to the current timeline.

I can agree with you if the same team didn't work on it and Anouma wasn't a part of it, then it would make sense why their the same. They wouldn't know any better and therefore wouldn't be relevant to the timeline

How does putting LOZ-AOL at the beginning break the consistency of Triforce's hidden location? In OOT, the Triforce was not hidden. The Royal Family knew exactly where it was and how to get it. It was just hidden from everyone else.

I'm not saying the placement couldn't work, I'm saying that once again there's no evidence for the transition from the Sacred Realm to the Royal Family and back again. And there's no evidence that Nintendo have bothered with retconning LoZ-AoL's placement either.

Why do you need evidence of a transition? There is no evidence of a transition from ALTTP to LOZ, either. The evidence I see for a possible retcon is exclusion of the references to LOZ-AOL in GBA ALTTP.

If you cite Lex theories, I'm going to assume you got them from Lex. And trust me, you're not saying anything Lex hasn't repeated several times.

Well, excuse me for happening to have the same theories as Lex I had no idea that he supported a LOZ-AOL-OOT placement. Hay, I am relatively new at this, so I am probably going to say things you have already debated. I think I read one article from Lex, and it had to do with intrepreting the Sleeping Zelda theory to fit a post-WW placement for LOZ-AOL.

[joeymartin64]

Even if we were to ignore the Maiden quote, it's always been practically impossible for Ganon to find the Sacred Realm without an additional magical prison to sever his connection to the outside world.

This, however, confounds me. Without an additional magical prison? What does this mean?

Ganon was sealed within the Four Sword; it's a magical prison.

I figured the magical prison was the Four Sword, but him not being able to find the Sacred Realm without it? I'm still lost here.

[Raien]

I figured the magical prison was the Four Sword, but him not being able to find the Sacred Realm without it? I'm still lost here.

Well, the Sacred Realm can only be accessed through a special portal (or the Temple of Time, in OoT). So how can Ganon find and pass through those portals when he's tied to the geographical location of the Four Sword Sanctuary?

[Masamune]

I think the working idea idea would be that he took the Four Sword with him, to make sure no one else would be able to use it. Which would be more or less implied in any timeline where FSA falls before ALttP (regardless of how many games are in between).

[Raien]

I think the working idea idea would be that he took the Four Sword with him, to make sure no one else would be able to use it. Which would be more or less implied in any timeline where FSA falls before ALttP (regardless of how many games are in between).

Two further considerations:

1) Why would Ganon even bother searching for the Sacred Realm when FSA establishes that the Trident's magic power could transform Hyrule into his Dark World anyway? In other words, what's stopping Ganon from just repeating what he did in FSA? The Four Sword's not there to stop him, as you said yourself.

2) A Maiden in ALttP (both versions) said that a human Ganondorf found the Sacred Realm to take the Triforce, which is impossible if Ganon had already transformed into a demon.

[MikePetersSucks]

It's very simple, guys. FSA Ganon Breaks Out. May or May not do something to the Four Sword. He is slain. This is a story not adapted into a game, just like the transition between Vaati being dead at the end of TMC and his coming alive and being sealed.

Centuries later, LTTP Ganondorf is born and does his thing.

[joeymartin64]

I figured the magical prison was the Four Sword, but him not being able to find the Sacred Realm without it? I'm still lost here.

Well, the Sacred Realm can only be accessed through a special portal (or the Temple of Time, in OoT). So how can Ganon find and pass through those portals when he's tied to the geographical location of the Four Sword Sanctuary?

Okay, so "without" was a typo or something?

[Average Gamer]

I always figured that the Four Sword was moved to the Sacred Realm for added security and Ganon, having been underestimated, eventually broke free of the blade and claimed the Triforce that was conveniently nearby.

[Raien]

Okay, so "without" was a typo or something?

No. If Ganon didn't have a magical prison, it would still be practically impossible for him to enter the Sacred Realm because he didn't know where the portals were (of if there were any open portals at all).

I always figured that the Four Sword was moved to the Sacred Realm for added security and Ganon, having been underestimated, eventually broke free of the blade and claimed the Triforce that was conveniently nearby.

That makes as much sense as building a terrorist prison camp right next to an unsecured facility for launching nuclear missiles. Do you really think that, given the history of villains breaking seals, the Maidens would not have anticipated the possibility of Ganon breaking another seal?

Edited by Raien, 02 September 2009 - 05:18 PM.

[Average Gamer]

That makes as much sense as building a terrorist prison camp right next to an unsecured facility for launching nuclear missiles. Do you really think that, given the history of villains breaking seals, the Maidens would not have anticipated the possibility of Ganon breaking another seal?

Bongo Bongo was sealed right underneath Kakariko, Link was removed from the AT after Ganondorf was sealed in the Sacred Realm, etc. People in the series seem to either overestimate seals or underestimate who they're sealing. That was just my thought behind it.

[Raien]

Bongo Bongo was sealed right underneath Kakariko, Link was removed from the AT after Ganondorf was sealed in the Sacred Realm, etc. People in the series seem to either overestimate seals or underestimate who they're sealing. That was just my thought behind it.

Whether a villain can break a seal doesn't appear to be something you can measure. The heroes place seals and hope they will hold forever, but there is no science that says the villain should not be able to break free at any time. With that said, it makes no sense for the Maidens to move the Four Sword to the location of the Triforce. None whatsoever.

PS: Kakariko was where the Sheikah, protectors of Hyrule, lived so it makes sense to have Bongo Bongo sealed there.

[joeymartin64]

Genre stupidity. It could work, but the Maiden quote that mentions a human Ganondorf renders it impossible.

And, Raien, it still sounds like you're saying Ganon needs to be sealed in the Four Sword to find the Sacred Realm. Am I just misreading this horrendously? EDIT: It just clicked. You meant that it's impossible even without being sealed in the Four Sword, right?

Edited by joeymartin64, 03 September 2009 - 03:48 PM.

[Raien]

And, Raien, it still sounds like you're saying Ganon needs to be sealed in the Four Sword to find the Sacred Realm. Am I just misreading this horrendously? EDIT: It just clicked. You meant that it's impossible even without being sealed in the Four Sword, right?

That's right. Well, it's virtually impossible.

[Average Gamer]

Whether a villain can break a seal doesn't appear to be something you can measure. The heroes place seals and hope they will hold forever, but there is no science that says the villain should not be able to break free at any time.

However, the characters do take foolish and unnecessary risks because of seals, such as putting Bongo Bongo right underneath a town or removing the only person who could stop Ganon from the timeline.

With that said, it makes no sense for the Maidens to move the Four Sword to the location of the Triforce.

On the CT, people had apparently never entered the Sacred Realm. The way was sealed off and no additional entrance could be found. Thus, by placing the Four Sword in the Sacred Realm, the Maidens may have thought that it would have been impossible for a Ganon-like figure to come across the blade and free Ganon one day.

Kakariko was where the Sheikah, protectors of Hyrule, lived so it makes sense to have Bongo Bongo sealed there.

Yet Bongo Bongo was not sealed in a fortress or any sort of military base; he was sealed in a well and, if freed, could have freely ravaged the town and its civilians. Furthermore, Bongo Bongo is kept in the well even after the Sheikah have basically died off and Hylian peasants have taken over the town. In my opinion, too much confidence was placed on that seal.

Edited by Average Gamer, 03 September 2009 - 05:08 PM.